From: CAMPAIGH FOR LIBERTY
Activists,
I just got off the phone with Bill Olsen. For those who don't know him, he is a constitutional lawyer and he and his partner, Herb Titus, helped draft the language of HB 1160. I have a great of respect for both of these gentlemen.
As I have shared with you, removing language regarding the Virginia National Guard and the Virginia Defense Forces from the bill was of concern to me as well as the word "unlawful" added to the language and what that means.
I'll attempt to dissect the language and present it to you as it was explained to me by Mr. Olsen.
This is the Senate version:
§ 1. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, no agency or political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or employee of same acting in his official capacity, shall aid an agency of the United States in the unlawful detention of any United States citizen pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1541 as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-81, § 1021).
1) "Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law" - Notwithstanding means in spite of, without regard to or prevention by. The courts have accepted that the plain meaning of notwithstanding is in spite of. Contrary, as we all know, means opposite in nature.
2) "no agency or political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or employee of same acting in his official capacity, - " When the Virginia National Guard and/or Virginia Defense Forces are called upon by the Governor in a crisis, they are acting on behalf of Virginia under Virginia law. The definitions contained in section 8.01-385 and by its terms "agency" includes "Departments," which includes the Department of Military Affairs, which is comprised of the Virginia Army National Guard and the Virginia Air National Guard and the Virginia Defense Force. Once the federal government calls them to duty, we no longer have jurisdiction and there is nothing we can do about that PERIOD!
3) "shall aid an agency of the United States" - Means no aid of any kind from any agency, department, employee, political subdivision of the state, any county, or city including any funding.
4) "in the unlawful detention" - Article 1, Section 8 of the Virginia Constitution says "That in criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, and to call for evidence in his favor, and he shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty." Meaning that to deprive a citizen of the U.S. the right to a trial is "unlawful" in Virginia.
5) "of any United States citizen" - No explanation necessary. We know what a U.S. citizen is.
6) "pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1541" - meaning as it relates to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities
7) "as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-81, § 1021)" - We all know what the NDAA can mean whether explicit or not in it's language.
That said, what the Senate version of HB 1160 says in layman's terms, according the Bill Olsen and Herb Titus, is:
In spite of any law opposite in nature, no agency, political subdivision, or employee of the Commonwealth acting on behalf of the Commonwealth which includes the Department of Military Affairs, which is comprised of the Virginia Army National Guard and the Virginia Air National Guard and the Virginia Defense Force as codified in Virginia code in section 8.01-385, shall provide ANY aid to any agency of the United States Government to detain a citizen of the United States without the right to confront his accusers and witnesses and to call for evidence in his favor, and to enjoy a speedy and public trial under Article 1, Section 8 of the Virginia Constitution, through the induction of U.S. Armed Forces under the National Defense Authorization Act.
I have been assured by Mr. Olsen that this is how the law is to be applied under the Senate version of HB 1160 and the AG would be the defender of Virginia if this bill would become law.
Bob had this to say about the bill:
"This bill is in the tradition of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves written by Jefferson and Madison. Virginia is stating that because we cite the specific objectionable section of the law and call it unlawful, that is the reason we will not participate in the practice of "unlawfully" (or unconstitutionally) detaining American citizens. Bob could have omitted the words "unlawful" and just said we would not participate in the detention, but he cited the specific offending section of the federal act as the reason for our non-participation. It is legally impossible for a state legislature to make a stronger statement of repudiation of a federal act, and we specified "unlawful" as the reason. This is an Act of the General Assembly, not a simple memorial resolution but hopefully will be an actual law. If we simply stated that Virginia would not participate in any detention, Virginia could have done it because of lack of money or manpower. But Virginia went one step further and used the word "unlawful." If this bill goes down, Virginia can participate in this unlawful detention. Is that better? If there is a gang of ten people who are going to kill you and we say we will not give resources to seven of them, we should feel safer."
In conclusion, if the Senate version of this bill does what Mr. Olsen and Mr. Titus says it does, and it does seem reasonable to me when dissecting and carefully inspecting it in this manner, then I believe we should do what we can to get it passed. As a layperson, I have nothing more than this and my faith in God to go on. Like you, I would prefer to see it spelled out explicitly but time is of the essence and we must decide quickly if this is enough for us.
Yours in liberty,
Donna
I just got off the phone with Bill Olsen. For those who don't know him, he is a constitutional lawyer and he and his partner, Herb Titus, helped draft the language of HB 1160. I have a great of respect for both of these gentlemen.
As I have shared with you, removing language regarding the Virginia National Guard and the Virginia Defense Forces from the bill was of concern to me as well as the word "unlawful" added to the language and what that means.
I'll attempt to dissect the language and present it to you as it was explained to me by Mr. Olsen.
This is the Senate version:
§ 1. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, no agency or political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or employee of same acting in his official capacity, shall aid an agency of the United States in the unlawful detention of any United States citizen pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1541 as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-81, § 1021).
1) "Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law" - Notwithstanding means in spite of, without regard to or prevention by. The courts have accepted that the plain meaning of notwithstanding is in spite of. Contrary, as we all know, means opposite in nature.
2) "no agency or political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or employee of same acting in his official capacity, - " When the Virginia National Guard and/or Virginia Defense Forces are called upon by the Governor in a crisis, they are acting on behalf of Virginia under Virginia law. The definitions contained in section 8.01-385 and by its terms "agency" includes "Departments," which includes the Department of Military Affairs, which is comprised of the Virginia Army National Guard and the Virginia Air National Guard and the Virginia Defense Force. Once the federal government calls them to duty, we no longer have jurisdiction and there is nothing we can do about that PERIOD!
3) "shall aid an agency of the United States" - Means no aid of any kind from any agency, department, employee, political subdivision of the state, any county, or city including any funding.
4) "in the unlawful detention" - Article 1, Section 8 of the Virginia Constitution says "That in criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, and to call for evidence in his favor, and he shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty." Meaning that to deprive a citizen of the U.S. the right to a trial is "unlawful" in Virginia.
5) "of any United States citizen" - No explanation necessary. We know what a U.S. citizen is.
6) "pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1541" - meaning as it relates to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities
7) "as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-81, § 1021)" - We all know what the NDAA can mean whether explicit or not in it's language.
That said, what the Senate version of HB 1160 says in layman's terms, according the Bill Olsen and Herb Titus, is:
In spite of any law opposite in nature, no agency, political subdivision, or employee of the Commonwealth acting on behalf of the Commonwealth which includes the Department of Military Affairs, which is comprised of the Virginia Army National Guard and the Virginia Air National Guard and the Virginia Defense Force as codified in Virginia code in section 8.01-385, shall provide ANY aid to any agency of the United States Government to detain a citizen of the United States without the right to confront his accusers and witnesses and to call for evidence in his favor, and to enjoy a speedy and public trial under Article 1, Section 8 of the Virginia Constitution, through the induction of U.S. Armed Forces under the National Defense Authorization Act.
I have been assured by Mr. Olsen that this is how the law is to be applied under the Senate version of HB 1160 and the AG would be the defender of Virginia if this bill would become law.
Bob had this to say about the bill:
"This bill is in the tradition of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves written by Jefferson and Madison. Virginia is stating that because we cite the specific objectionable section of the law and call it unlawful, that is the reason we will not participate in the practice of "unlawfully" (or unconstitutionally) detaining American citizens. Bob could have omitted the words "unlawful" and just said we would not participate in the detention, but he cited the specific offending section of the federal act as the reason for our non-participation. It is legally impossible for a state legislature to make a stronger statement of repudiation of a federal act, and we specified "unlawful" as the reason. This is an Act of the General Assembly, not a simple memorial resolution but hopefully will be an actual law. If we simply stated that Virginia would not participate in any detention, Virginia could have done it because of lack of money or manpower. But Virginia went one step further and used the word "unlawful." If this bill goes down, Virginia can participate in this unlawful detention. Is that better? If there is a gang of ten people who are going to kill you and we say we will not give resources to seven of them, we should feel safer."
In conclusion, if the Senate version of this bill does what Mr. Olsen and Mr. Titus says it does, and it does seem reasonable to me when dissecting and carefully inspecting it in this manner, then I believe we should do what we can to get it passed. As a layperson, I have nothing more than this and my faith in God to go on. Like you, I would prefer to see it spelled out explicitly but time is of the essence and we must decide quickly if this is enough for us.
Yours in liberty,
Donna
--
InVictory
Mary Leedom
No comments:
Post a Comment