Montana votes 20-0 in favor of anti-NDAA bill
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+474) 8 years ago
At least the people in charge of the Government in Montana are forward thinking, realize what is going on in our Government at the national level, and refuse to let the people of Montana be treated like a bunch of helpless sheep (I wish the same could be said of the corrupt Govt. here in New York that will happily sell their constituents out)!

******************************************************
Montana votes 20-0 in favor of anti-NDAA bill

http://blog.tenthamendmen...ttee-20-0/

The anti-NDAA movement continues to gain traction. There is still much more work to be done as part ofOperation Homeland Liberty, but People's Blog for The Constitution highlights the latest development we can add to the victory column in Montana's step toward resisting federal intrusion.
By a vote of 20-0, a bill that bans cooperation with federal agents over the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has just passed the Montana House Judiciary Committee. Known as HB 522, the bill would also require the state's attorney general to report any attempts by federal officials who try to enforce the NDAA. HB 522 is now one step closer to becoming law.

Additional details below with contact information for Montana legislators..

Introduced by freshman Republican state Rep. Nicholas Schwaderer, the bill has gathered over 20 Democratic and Republican cosponsors in the House, including the Speaker Pro Tempore Austin Knudsen and the chair of the Judiciary committee, Krayton Kerns.

Speaking at a committee hearing on Wednesday, Schwaderer articulated why he opposes the NDAA and indefinite detention: "There's a lot of us on both sides of the aisle that feels that this flies in the face of habeas corpus and a free society and the better part of a millennium of human progress."




Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association issues statement on gun control

http://www.bozemandailych...963f4.html

The Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association will not infringe on the right to bear arms, the organization said in a statement Tuesday.

Gallatin County Sheriff Brian Gootkin, who is the organization's first vice president, sent the prepared statement, saying the association opposes any legislation that takes away constitutional protections, including gun rights, from law-abiding citizens.

Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 8 years ago
You really need to read the Constitution of the United States.
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2706) 8 years ago
Amen Amorette!
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+474) 8 years ago
Scorecard: How Many Rights Have Americans REALLY Lost?

http://www.washingtonsblo...ution.html
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4944) 8 years ago
they just introduced a new law allowing corporations to vote in municipalities in Montana...No kidding...was just proposed...if that passes we will be one of the first states to descent into fascism...it is getting really scary...IMO

http://thinkprogress.org/...t-to-vote/

[This message has been edited by howdy (2/22/2013)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17343) 8 years ago
I nominate Krayton Kerns as the biggest dumbass in the legislature.

I think he wins, hands down. Any others?
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeri Dalbec (+3245) 8 years ago
Do you want the whole list of ALEC and ATR (Norquist Pledge signers)? House Bill 486 that Howdy mentions is presented by ALEC member S. Lavin. Essman is beholden to ALEC along with many others. K. Kerns is a Pledge signer...they are all beholden to the Corporations. The bills are designed by the ALEC Corporate Bill Mill and their "stooges" present them to the Legislature. If you notice, the same bills are often being debated in other states as well.

I checked www.sourcewatch.org tonight and saw where several States have had their members quit ALEC...but, not Montana. It is saturated and I think our only hope is the Governor. Also, 38 Corporations have pulled out. We have been so gullible that it makes me sick.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9197) 8 years ago
Sadly, valtrex won't cure us of Cheryl.
Top
Posted by Steve Allison (+981) 8 years ago
Do you all realize that if a sherif refuses to help federal agents, he or she is guilty of being an accessory to the original offense and subject to arrest and imprisonment no matter the state laws involved? Passing stupid laws makes no difference and will have no effect, just makes stupid leg feel and sound better to stupid voters so they get re-elected.
Top
Posted by Jan Cornutt (+275) 8 years ago
Do you realize that the Sheriff in any county in any state is the senior law officer in that county. He is even senior to any federal agent. He has also sworn under oath to uphold the constitution and when the federal agents are trying to enforce something that goes against the constitution, the sheriff must uphold the constitution. To change the constitution would require a bill passed by congress and then ratified by three fourths of our 50 states. And yes it can be done without the president or his signature......korkyII
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 8 years ago
Seriously, you people really have no clue what you are talking about. I know that the Rush Windbags and Faux News and Tea Bag folks spout this stuff but they are making it up. States are "lower" than the federal government. That's why laws are appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, not from one state to another.

I am so tired of you unpatriotic, anti-American people saying terrible things about the country I love. If you don't like the United States, why not move somewhere else? I believe in the Constitution and the law of this land and will uphold it rather than treat it with contempt, the way some people do. I can only hope the law enforcement officers around me are as loyal and patriotic to the United States of America as I am.
Top
Posted by Jan Cornutt (+275) 8 years ago
Amorette, you are wrong. The sheriff in any county is the senior law enforcement officer in that county. The Feds challenged this a number of years ago in wyoming and lost the case. It was upheld by the U.S. Supreme court. Why do you think the Feds are not all over Colorado right now on their legalization of MJ ? Possession of MJ is against federal law. States Sovereinty....korkyII
Top
Posted by Jan Cornutt (+275) 8 years ago
You are the one calling names and making accusations. I don'nt understand why Liberals have to resort to name calling and being so vindictive. I am more patriotic than you will ever know, and I know I am darn sure more patriotic than you are. Just because we don't agree on some things doesn't make either one of us unpatriotic....korkyII
Top
Posted by Jan Cornutt (+275) 8 years ago
The law enforcement officers are as patriotic as you and they will uphold the constitution of the U.S. even when it disagrees with the Federal Government....korkyII
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9197) 8 years ago
Cite or it didn't happen.
Top
Posted by Cactus Plains (+97) 8 years ago
Broom Ryder ... like I said before you are a fraud!

You are the anti-American ... just like the OPC/CIA newspaper ... you work for the Vatican ... not the people of America.

SATAN is the power behind the governments of every country in the world. The American people fund this evil because of sheeples like you who do not report the TRUTH.

TRUTH IS GOD
MATH IS GOD
MOTHER NATURE IS GOD

Religion is of SATAN.
Education is control by SATAN
Media is a deception of SATAN
Wall Street SATAN's BEAST!
Corrupted Court Houses are of SATAN


300 American Corporations funded the Vatican SS ... Hitler was their baby ... the babylon baby ... after the war they moved to America ... hence the Miles City Star, Vaccines, GMO, Pseudomonas fluorescens, mycoplasma fermentans incognitus, poison rain,chemtrails
cancer the bacillus that kills us ... Nazis quiet weapons for silent wars

The Tax Base of Custer County is chemically poisoned by bacteria of slime and fungus which sufficates and poisons its prey.

What makes the world go around?

Sacred geometry, numerology and astrology by intelligent design, all knowing God.

SATAN Prince of the Power of the Skies has been god of planet earth for the last 6000 years. Through religion media education and $money he has corrupted and disconnected mankind from the GOD MIND?

Black Mold to you Broom Ryder

U. Ben Fooled

Cactus Plains
Top
Posted by Jan Cornutt (+275) 8 years ago
Bridgier, When a peace officer is sworn in they swear to uphold the constitution, not the federal gov't.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 8 years ago
So, how do you know that any further laws will be unconstitutional? Your personal opinion? I was under the impression it required a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States of America to determine what does and does not pass constitutional muster. If anyone can pick and chose what is and is not 'constituional,' we would have chaos.

Can you wait for a ruling as is legal and CONSTITUTIONAL or do you just run off in hysterics on the assumption of something, in your personal and non-legal opinion, is one thing or the other?
Top
supporter
Posted by K.Duffy (+1807) 8 years ago
I'll NEVER live to be 1/2 as smart as korky II BUT ~ in reference to the power of state (sheriff) law enforcement having jurisdiction over the Feds..where the hey were was the sheriff dept when the marijuana busts took place

The plan for individual states to counteract fedral laws was proven to be not such a good idea, to me, in the Flor case..
Top
Posted by Jan Cornutt (+275) 8 years ago
Duffy, federal laws are not supposed to go against the constitution and when they do the constitution will be upheld. As it is right now any federal marshal etc coming into the jurisdiction of a county sheriff is supposed to contact the county sheriff pertaining to their business. If it is constitutional the sheriff usually accompanies the feds. There is no friction between the sheriff and the feds. If you don't believe me go ask our sheriff.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9197) 8 years ago
federal laws are not supposed to go against the constitution and when they do the constitution will be upheld

And how does a sherrif figure this out? Does he just call up his tea-party buddies and ask them, or is there some sort of mechanism at the federal level to determine what is or isn't constitutional?

It's just so confusing.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4944) 8 years ago
The purpose of the US Supreme Court and lower courts is to determine if any ruling is against our US Constitution...it is that simplistic...nothing can be adjudged higher than our US Constitution...Read it and weep tea baggers...
Top
Posted by Jan Cornutt (+275) 8 years ago
Howdy If you even had a clue of what ur talking about you might be dangerous, however you don't so I'm just going to consider anything you say as garbage and leave it at that. Not even going to answer you from here on out....korkyII
Top
Posted by Jan Cornutt (+275) 8 years ago
The supreme court or any other court only makes a ruling when there is a difference of opinion as to what any part of the constitution means. Outside of that the meanining of the constitution is not that hard to understand. Same with the Declaration of Independence. It's your liberal ncohorts in congress and the white house that keep wanting to deviate from the constitution and if you can't see that you are all blind....korkyII
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 8 years ago
Uh, the Declaration of Independence is not law. And when a court evaluates whatever it does, it doesn't look directly to the Constitution (a fluid document designed to adapt with society). They go by intent and look to the latest interpretations and such for clarification. Then add their own 2 cents worth, if necessary.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 8 years ago
The point is, no one individual can just decide something is or isn't "constitutional.' If we did, then everyone could have their own personal version of the law. There has to be a law of the land, not just a bunch of folks with an ax to grind.

I think child porn, if it doesn't involve an actual child, say, just a pervy written description, should be legal but the Supreme Court of the United States of America--so named because they are the top decider of these issues--says it isn't. I accept that although I disagree, it is the law.

If the Supreme Court makes a decision--which it hasn't because no laws have been written, passed or appealed--then we should abide by it.

Until then, county sheriffs have no business making decisions on the finer points of law. That is NOT their job. Enforcing laws that others interpret is.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4944) 8 years ago
Thanks webmaster for clarifying that for me...well said...I always find the rulings of the Supremes interesting as they reference the Constitution and how it might apply to whatever law they are judging...Obama was a Constitutional scholar, I think, which is a good thing as well IMO...
Top