Introduced by Democratic Rep. Tim O’Flaherty and 2 democrat and 2 republican co-sponsors, HB1279 would declare indefinite detention under 2012 NDAA (or any other federal act) to be unconstitutional, and expressly ban the state from taking actions which effectuate it.
STATUS 01-23-14 – Passed unanimously out of committee.
02-06-14 – Passed state house unanimously by voice vote
TAKE ACTION TO SUPPORT!
1. Call your state senator. As the next step for HB1279 is consideration in a senate committee (yet to be assigned), please call your state senator to support this bill today! Be strong, but respectful. Urge him or her to support and vote YES on HB1279. If they do not commit to a YES vote, ask them why. If they’re undecided, let them know you’ll follow up to in a few days to find out if they’ve yet to take a position. It is important that you call because a phone call has 10x the impact of an email.
Find your senator at this link:
2. on Twitter? Retweet
— TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) January 22, 2014
TEXT OF THE LEGISLATION, VIA AMENDMENT FROM REP. ITSE AND REP. WHITE
Protection from Military action
642:1 Protection Against Unlawful Military Action Within New Hampshire. The General Court of New Hampshire and the Governor of New Hampshire hold that indefinite detention or transfer to jurisdictions outside the United States of citizens of New Hampshire in particular and citizens of the United States in general are unlawful pursuant to the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part the First, Articles 15, 17 and 19, and the Constitution for the United States of America, Amendments IV, V and VI. Therefore, pursuant to the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Article 7, and the Constitution for the United States, Amendments IX and X, Notwithstanding notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, no New Hampshire agency, political subdivision, or employee of either acting in his or her official capacity, and no member of the New Hampshire national guard under the command of the governor when such member is serving in the national guard, may knowingly engage in any activity that aids an agency of or the armed forces of the United States in the execution of 50 U.S.C. section 1541 as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Public Law 112-18, section 1021, or any other similar law, order or regulation, in the investigation, arrest, detention, extra-judicial transfer to foreign jurisdictions or entities, military tribunal or trial, of any person within the United States. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to prevent cooperation with federal civilian authorities not acting pursuant to 50 U.S.C. section 1541, as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Public Law 112-18, section 1021, or any other similar law, order, or regulation, nor to any training which may apply to tasks in common with those required to execute 50 U.S.C. section 1541, as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Public Law 112-18, section 1021.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2015.
The Liberty Preservation Act is an important FIRST STEP to nullifying indefinite detention under NDAA (and other federal acts). The law would be passed on a state level, encouraged and supported by ordinances passed on a local level (in your county and city/town). You can be sure that this one bill (and no single piece of legislation) will fully nullify indefinite detention, but this will make a significant dent in federal efforts to carry out the practice. Our research shows that, conservatively, 80% or more of federal enforcement actions rely on assistance in some way from state and local resources. Withdrawing that support will create a situation where the federal government lacks the manpower to enforce what it would like to enforce.
From there, once your state completes this first step, there are more…aggressive…measures that will be implemented to push back.
This bill would ban the state from participating in, providing material support, or assisting the federal government in any act which purports to authorize indefinite detention.
When federal agents make arrests, they are almost always accompanied by state or local law enforcement to assist them. Our research shows that at least 80% of all federal enforcement actions rely heavily on such “partnerships,” and that’s a very conservative estimate. The Liberty Preservation Act would ban this law enforcement participation.
When the federal government carries out an enforcement action, it not only relies on state or local law enforcement to carry the burden of much of the physical enforcement actions, it also relies heavily on logistics and information-sharing with state agencies. Whether the information is provided by fusion centers (which are often heavily funded by states and operated by them) or through sharing agreements, the Liberty Preservation Act would ban such actions. It would also ban all logistics assistance, setting up road blocks, putting on handcuffs, use of state or local jail or prison facilities, and the like.
Anything and everything you can think of that would actually happen in a federal enforcement action would be banned – not one pen, not one email, not one officer, not one dollar of resources – no assistance whatsoever.
As James Madison said, such a “refusal to cooperate” when done in multiple states can effectively stop federal acts by creating “obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”
Writing in Federalist #46, James Madison said there are “powerful means” to successfully oppose federal acts. Specifically, “A refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union.” (learn more here)
This state and local legislative package takes this advice from the “father of the constitution” quite seriously.
In order to be successful, it will be essential to approach this from many fronts. On the local level, ordinances should be passed which follow the same principles and call the state to pass the Liberty Preservation Act. This should occur at the county, city and town level.
Use the navigation links below for more information on the bill, the strategy, and the historical and constitutional basis.