I don’t know how this slipped through the libertarian blogosphere but this is pretty hardcore. Looks like it was on 3/13/2008 and the blog is from 6/15/2008.

http://politicalinquirer.com/…

STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2nd Session of the 51st Legislature (2008)
HOUSE JOINT
RESOLUTION 1089 By: Key
AS INTRODUCED
A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States over certain powers; serving notice to the
federal government to cease and desist certain
mandates; and directing distribution.
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States reads as follows:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and
WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 51ST OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all
powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal
government by the Constitution of the United States.
THAT this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government,
as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates
that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated
powers.

THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state’s
legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the
Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

http://www.okhouse.gov/51LEG/Leg_Votesxx.aspx?include=okh01983.txt
http://www.ok-safe.com/files/documents/1/HJR1089_int.pdf

And as other sovereignty issues arise like with Real ID hopefully the states can exert enough pressure to cripple the federal government. At least slow its march toward total national control.

http://www.freep.com/…

The DJ was spinning old records by James Brown, Aretha Franklin and the Meters during Funk Night last weekend, when the heavily armed cops dressed in commando-style uniforms burst into the west-side Detroit art gallery.The cops yelled at the patrons to hit the floor. Witnesses said some officers used their feet to force down a couple of people who failed to move fast enough or asked too many questions.

Detroit police conduct raids frequently for all sorts of illegal activity, and the public never hears a thing. But cops almost never raid art galleries filled with young hipsters, students and at least one lawyer. So this May 30 raid, not unexpectedly, is turning out to have an afterlife: The gallery and patrons have decided to fight back, and the American Civil Liberties Union has become involved.

To the police, CAID was a blind pig, where people were buying beer after hours. They handed out 130 tickets for loitering in a place where alcohol was being sold illegally and impounded 44 cars, which cost $900 to get back.

Cops found no drugs, no weapons, no people with outstanding warrants.

Police spokesman James Tate said officers warned Timlin about violations during a visit several weeks ago. “We don’t often do that,” Tate said. “He was advised of the issues he needed to clarify.”

Timlin confirmed the visit, but said he believed he had made the necessary changes. He said the police told club officials May 30 that they also need a permit to allow dancing.

As a response to the raid, Timlin has launched a week-long arts festival that started at midnight Friday and will end with a concert Saturday.

Timlin is lining up bands, artists, lecturers, filmmakers and others to keep the CAID going 24 hours a day for 8 days.

Timlin said the 192-hour art festival this week will be alcohol-free, but in featuring dancing, he seems to be asking for more trouble.

“We’re standing up for what we believe in,” Timlin said. “We’d prefer that the police come and dance with us.”

But if they are found guilty by the courts will they refuse to pay the fines? Are they willing to go to jail for what they believe in? Will they fight to get their $900 back?

http://www.out-law.com/page-8884 

The US government, through the National Security Agency, has been tapping phone lines without court warrants since shortly after the terrorist attacks in the US of September 2001. The till-then secret programme was revealed by the New York Times in 2005.

The government claims that the actions were legal but has made all details of the programme classified. This causes problems for the ACLU since only those who have been wiretapped can sue, but the information about who has been tapped is kept secret.

Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU’s national security project, said that the case raised worries about the unchecked power of the president who, as the executive arm, is just one branch of government.

“It’s very disturbing that the president’s actions will not be reviewed by the Supreme Court. It shouldn’t be left to executive branch officials alone to determine what limits apply to their own surveillance activities and whether those limits are being honoured,” he said. “Allowing the executive branch to police itself flies in the face of the constitutional system of checks and balances.”

The ACLU had tried to appeal a verdict of a US Court of Appeal which ruled that it could not prove that its communications had been monitored, and so could not prove that the programme had harmed any party to the case. It had sued on behalf of itself, journalist and scholars.

Separate law suits are being conducted in the US against the telecommunications companies that allowed the surveillance to happen without court-issued warrants.

There are also political struggles over amendments to US law that would allow warrantless wiretaps of non-US citizens in the US who are communicating with people overseas.

A temporary measure expired over the weekend and the Democrat-controlled Congress refused to make the law permanent.

That law included controversial immunity for telecoms companies. Congress has proposed a law that does extend wiretapping but does not grant telcos immunity from prosecution for their actions.

“The court’s unwillingness to act makes it even more important that Congress insist on legislative safeguards that will protect civil liberties without jeopardizing national security,” said Steven Shapiro, the ACLU’s legal director.

You want to prove to the judicial branch that the executive branch is breaking the law and show that the legislative branch is at least complacent if not helping them do so. To have a case you must prove you’ve been harmed but the only proof is held by those you are accusing. They won’t confirm or deny the existence of the proof nor would they turn it over because it’s a matter of national security. The judicial system says that since you can’t get the evidence you don’t have a case.

Does anyone else find this a little troubling?

http://arstechnica.com/…

The government has appealed a September federal court ruling that struck down the National Security Letter (NSL) provision of the PATRIOT Act. The NSL provision, which can be used without probable cause or judicial oversight, gives the FBI the ability to secretly demand access to the private records of libraries, Internet service providers, and other organizations. National Security Letters also impose gag restrictions on recipients, which forbid them from disclosing that they have received the letter.

In a strongly-worded ruling issued earlier this year in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of an anonymous Internet service provider, federal court judge Victor Marrero wrote that the NSL provision of the PATRIOT Act represents an unconstitutional deprivation of First Amendment rights and threatens to undermine the Separation of Powers doctrine by expanding the executive branch’s authority to the detriment of governmental accountability. The government has now appealed Marerro’s ruling and will continue to fight for the preservation of the PATRIOT Act in court.

In a statement issued yesterday by the American Civil Liberties Union, a representative of an ISP voiced concerns about the National Security Letter gag orders and expressed frustration at being unable to testify during recent Congressional inquiry regarding the involvement of telecommunications companies in the NSA wiretap program. As a result of the gag order, the speaker is forced to remain anonymous and cannot disclose specific details regarding the National Security Letters that his company has received.

National Security Letters have been around for a long time. The PATRIOT Act has made them the government’s favorite new tool. The idea goes back to the times before our revolution when British soldiers did the same kind of warrant on the spot deal. There are actual reasons for that 4th Amendment. This thing really need to get put down. The ridiculousness of this story should be enough to convince the average person that these on the fly warrant/gag orders are a very dangerous and unnecessary tool to have.

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/…

http://www.freenewmexican.com/…

Anastasio Prieto, a truck driver from El Paso, Texas, doesn’t trust banks and prefers to carry his savings with him in cash. While this is a dangerous way to manage one’s money, a cursory glance at recent headlines tends to validate Prieto’s concerns about the stability of the fractional-reserve banking system.

During a stop at a weigh station in New Mexico on August 8, Prieto made a critical mistake: He cooperated with the police, assuming that as a law-abiding individual he had nothing to fear from them.

A New Mexico state trooper asked Prieto for permission to search his truck for contraband, such as needles or cash in excess of $10,000. Displaying an ingenuousness that breaks my heart, the truck driver consented, informing the officer that he was carrying nothing illegal — but admitting that he had $23,700 on board.

The police “forfeited” — that is, stole — Prieto’s savings. The DEA agents who presided over the theft “told Prieto he would receive a notice of federal proceedings to permanently forfeit the money within 30 days and that to get it back, he’d have to prove it was his and did not come from illegal drug sales,” reported the Houston Chronicle.

How terribly disgusting. How exactly does one prove $X in cash is theirs and not made through illegal means? Does anyone keep track of the serial numbers of their cash? I doubt his bank did when they cashed his checks. I’ll be surprised if this guy gets his life savings back. Unless the ACLU can shame the government into doing so. Never volunteer your property to be searched. It can only increase the chances of you losing something.