Tenth Amendment Remembered

...from Tenth Amendment Center BOSTON , Mass. (Oct. 24, 2019) – On Tuesday, a joint Massachusetts legislative committee held a hearing on two bills that would ban the warrantless use of stingray devices and the collection of electronic data stored by service providers in most situations. Final passage of the bill would not only protect privacy in Massachusetts; it would also hinder the federal surveillance state. House Bill 3422 ( H3422 ) and Senate Bill 861 ( S861 ) were both introduced in January. Both bills would help block the use of cell-site simulators, known as “ stingrays .” These devices essentially spoof cell phone towers, tricking any device within range into connecting to the stingray instead of the tower, allowing law enforcement to sweep up communications content, as well as locate and track the person in possession of a specific phone or other electronic device. Under both bills, law enforcement would only be able to use a stingray device pursuant to a warrant based...

...from Tenth Amendment Center I’ve been told that law students prepping for the Bar Exam are told that if the Tenth Amendment is ever among the answers on a multiple-choice question, they can immediately rule it out. Future lawyers are told the Tenth Amendment is never the “right” answer. Thomas Jefferson had a little different view of the Tenth Amendment. He called it the “foundation of the Constitution.” “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” The Tenth Amendment makes it unquestioningly clear that the Constitution constrains the general government to very specific and very limited powers. As James Ma...

...from Tenth Amendment Center Do you remember when Donald Trump said he was going to get rid of the national debt? He did. In fact, he said he could do it “fairly quickly.” Well, I’m still waiting. On the campaign trail back in 2016, the president said the national debt was a problem that he was going to address. “We’re not a rich country. We’re a debtor nation … We’ve got to get rid of the $19 trillion in debt,”  Trump told The Washington Post . “I think I could do it fairly quickly. … I would say over a period of eight years.” Well, three years into his first term, the national debt has increased by more than 14 percent. When President Trump took office in January 2017, the debt stood at $19.95 trillion. Last February, the  national debt topped $22 trillion . That represented a $2.06 trillion increase in the debt in just over two years. According to the latest Treasury Department numbers, the national debt currently stands at $22.84 trillion and climbing. Maybe ...

...from Tenth Amendment Center A bill introduced in the U.S. House would create a real-time national driver surveillance program that would allow law enforcement to know anything and everything about a driver at the click of a button. But even if the bill never goes anywhere, the transportation surveillance system is already built – and growing. Path to Liberty: October 23, 2019 PODCAST VERSION Subscribe: iTunes | Google Play | Stitcher | Spotify | RSS SHOW LINKS: JOIN TAC Show Archives Subscribe and Review on iTunes Federal “Safe Drivers Act” Would Create Real-Time National Driver Surveillance Program 2.5 Billion. Surveillance State Goes Wild Police Using License Plate Readers To “Grid” Entire Neighborhoods Massive 30-State, Real-Time ALPR Database About to Go Live Private Companies Partnering with Cops to Track Your License Plate Police Using Streetlamps to Spy on the Public Feds Building Giant Surveillance Network on America’s Transportation System with State a...

...from Tenth Amendment Center I recently saw a tweet by Paul Krugman asserting that, “What we do have is a persistent problem of weak demand; yes, we have full employment now, but only with extremely low interest rates, which means little ability to respond to the next downturn. This makes a strong case for a big government investment program.” Ah yes. We need more government stimulus. I can already hear Republicans and Trump supporters mocking Krugman and his silly Keynesian fiscal stimulus. And it is silly. This is, after all, the guy who suggested a fake alien invasion would be good for the economy because it would boost government spending. But Republicans who mock Krugman do so with a complete lack of self-awareness. Given that the U.S. has been in a period of economic growth, the current administration, along with a predominantly Republican-controlled Congress, has provided the economy with an unprecedented amount of government spending. In fact, we’ve never seen budget...

...from Tenth Amendment Center At Balkinization, Richard Primus argues that, under a textualist interpretation, the President could be impeached for matters in addition to high crimes and misdemeanors:  It Doesn’t Say “Only”: A Textual Point About Impeachment .  He argues: Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution reads as follows: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  As a matter of practice, people have taken that language to state the exclusively valid grounds for removal.  On that understanding, someone who has committed neither treason, nor bribery, nor a high crime or misdemeanor is not subject to impeachment.  In other words, everyone speaks as if Article II, Section 4 said that the officeholders specified shall be removed from office  only  on impeachment for and...

...from Tenth Amendment Center SPRINGFIELD , Mass. (Oct. 22, 2019) – The Springfield City Council is considering a ban on police use of facial recognition technology in the city. The growing movement to prohibit the use of facial recognition at the state and local levels could hinder the operation of a growing national facial recognition network. The Springfield City Council discussed a potential ban during a meeting on Oct. 7. The issue came to the forefront due to concerns that the Springfield Police Department could use the facial recognition technology with body-worn cameras. According to Western Mass News , the proposed facial recognition ban would include body-worn cameras and “all other city functions.” Specific language for the ban has not been made public. Councilor Orlando Ramos supports a ban due to its inaccuracy of facial recognition. “A study by MIT was done that concluded black women were 37 percent more likely to misidentified by facial recognition technology tha...