January 31, 2015 at 5:22 pm #35505
read the video description , it pretty much explains what the deal is , the video itself is not the important issue , so read the authors description .January 31, 2015 at 11:31 pm #35527
Detaining Americans indefinitely, without trial, through the use of military force is well established. Every year since its inception in 2012, President Obama has re-extended the provisions. The idea of American military members detaining you without a trial, for an indefinite amount of time, is eye opening to some, and that’s exactly why states have begun to slowly but surely nullify federal detention.
The state legislature isn’t the only body that can reject NDAA powers. There are also the county bodies: both the states along with their divided counties have been on the offensive. Having success most recently are Idaho’s council members in Emmett who passed NDAA-blocking legislation by a count of 5 to 1. The “Restoring Constitutional Governance Resolution” effectively rejects the enforcement of indefinite detention.February 1, 2015 at 12:03 am #35531
Agree with 74, The NDAA powers are being rejected by many states and I hope that the state national guards will follow the state laws.February 1, 2015 at 1:31 am #35538
Good for them. There needs to be more of this.February 1, 2015 at 2:33 am #35539
Not sure if we did or not , but Arizona was at one point voting on weather or not to start up its own militia , separate from the national guard and so could NOT be federalized . So it would be very possible in that scenario , that the State Militia ( answerable to the state governor only ) could be in conflict with the AZ national guard ( who are kissing the feds butt ) . Not sure how it works, but I think the Governor of each state has to release the national guard for federalization . Either way , legislation at the state level needs to be in place to counter Washington .
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.February 1, 2015 at 3:18 am #35541
Does anyone here know if a Governor has ever refused a request to federalize their National Guard for deployment somewhere? Or do they waive that option when they accept equipment/supplies/money from the feds? My guess is that they waive the option when the feds fund the National Guard.February 1, 2015 at 3:38 am #35543
That is possible .
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.