When it is a requirement to give words their common ordinary defined meaning?
When is non-compliant interpretation of the technical defined meaning tolerable?
When will you allow your government or others to substitute exact meaning with a “version” of fact?
SB 400 has been purported to be Nullification. If individuals are to truly exercise Sovereign Individual Rights responsibility for understanding the acts of government depends upon each.
Consider the published digest of introduced SB 400: “Synopsis: Detainment of citizens under federal defense act. Prohibits specified individuals and entities in Indiana from aiding an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a person under a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) or similar law providing for indefinite detention. Makes it a Class A misdemeanor for a federal official to enforce the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA.”
The now amended version SB 400 removes any penalty to a federal official for enforcing indefinite detention provision of NDAA and instead attaches punishment to state actors who reasonably should know their actions violate due process. “Synopsis: Aid in enforcing unconstitutional laws. Prohibits specified state actors in Indiana from aiding certain United States agencies or other state actors in the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a person lawfully in Indiana under a state or federal law that the state actor knows or reasonably should know violates the due process clause of the United States Constitution or the Due Course of Law Clause of the Indiana Constitution, and prohibits state actors from investigating, prosecuting, or detaining a person lawfully in Indiana under a state or federal law that the state actor knows or reasonably should know violates the due process clause of the United States Constitution or the Due Course of Law Clause of the Indiana Constitution. Makes a knowing or intentional violation a Class A misdemeanor.”
Now perhaps we should consider the technically defined meaning of NULLIFICATION, four are provided each justifying the other.
1.)“Black’s Law Dictionary” 6th ed. Nullification. The state or condition of being void; without legal effect or status. Also, the act which produces such effect.”
|the states’-rights doctrine that a state can refuse to recognize or to enforce a federal law passed by the United States Congress.wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn”
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.”
4.) Merriam-Webster m-w.com “Definition of NULLIFICATION
1: the act of nullifying : the state of being nullified
2: the action of a state impeding or attempting to prevent the operation and enforcement within its territory of a law of the United States.”
Enter into the equation HR 1540, aka : ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012’’. And the infamous Section 1021:” SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.”
How does Sec. 1021 NDAA 2012 the “ affirmation of authority of the armed forces of the United States to detain pursuant to the authorization for use of military force become nullified by prohibiting discretionary non-assistance by “state actors”?
Where in either version of SB 400 does Indiana void, nullify, refuse to recognize or to enforce a federal law, impede or attempt to prevent the operation and enforcement of NDAA by the armed forces of the United States?
If the Indiana General Assembly believes the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA denies Indiana inhabitants due process how is SB 400 resolute protection against enforcement by the armed forces of the United States?
Do individuals believe the armed forces of the United States depends upon the assistance of state actors to carry out orders authorized by the defense department and the provisions of SB 400 will stop a defense department operation?
Perhaps it is time all use technically precise language so all have equal understanding of exactly which constitutional protections of Sovereign Individual Rights are being violated; and so all have equal understanding of the precise meaning of laws enacted by Indiana government to protect those Rights.
The downloaded copy of HR 1540, aka : ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012’’ is 565 pages, the often cited infamous sections SEC. 1021. “AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE” and SEC. 1022. “MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS” are only several pages, you may consider reading them in their entirety, I found facts interesting.