Just got off the phone with Del. Marshall…..the vote on HB 1160  Unlawful detention of United States citizens has been held over by Committee Chair Dave Albo, which Bob says is a good thing. This gives us time to mount the pressure on this committee! DON’T STOP NOW!!!This bill is poised to get national attention. Please keep up the pressure with emails and phone calls and help Virginia to lead the way in the cause of freedom!

Of particular local interest, Del. Greg Habeeb is on this committee. As of yesterday, he is on record in support of HB 1160. Please take a moment this week to call or email Del. Habeeb with your thoughts.

I did truncate the statement Brian, though not for the purpose of misleading. Your point is well taken; I will post in it’s entirety Monday with additional commentary, which will explain why I took that particular line to task. Thank You for the response.

We would only remind Gov. McDonnell, and all the legislators on these committees, they have responsibilities to Virginia to fulfill. Political careers can wait.

Better yet, build a political career on taking a stand, and upholding your oaths of office.

Statement from Rosa Koire, Democrat activist and author of Behind the Green Mask, on the importance of HB 1160.

Virginia House Bill No. 1160, as offered on January 16, 2012 is an important bill in many ways. It asserts the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution in determining that Virginia will not be a party to, or assist in the implementation of a law that violates the Virginia constitution.

In addition to raising constitutionality of the National Defense Authorization Act as it is currently written, Virginia has an opportunity to pass a bill that reaffirms it commitment to the fundamental precepts upon which our nation was founded. Virginia, one of the original thirteen colonies, participated in a war for independence which joined people of differing religious beliefs, cultural origins, and political viewpoints in the birthing of liberty. This hard-worn battle must be fought every day in the halls of Congress and the Senate, and in the statehouses of every state in the Union.

I urge you to recognize that this battle is non-partisan, vital, and elemental to our continuing ideal of ourselves as a nation conceived in liberty and committed to the protection of our citizens. Please vote to support Virginia House Bill No. 1160.

Thank you,

–
Rosa Koire, ASA
Executive Director
Post Sustainability Institute
http://www.PostSustainabilityInstitute.org
http://www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com
http://www.SantaRosaNeighborhoodCoalition.com

“Mr. Cuccinelli’s spokesman, Brian Gottstein, said in an email, ‘Based on the law as it currently stands, the federal light bulb ban is constitutional, and therefore, it would pre-empt HB66 under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.’

“Really? So, are we expected to believe that Cuccinelli thinks the authority to regulate health care is not in the Constitution as is stated in his lawsuit concerning Obamacare, but the authority to regulate light bulbs is? Other than citing the Supremacy Clause, which only applies to Constitutional laws, neither A.G. Cuccinelli, nor his spokesman offered any language in the U.S. Constitution that would support this assertion. How could they? There is none.”

– The office gave a full explanation, but for some reason, Mr. Honeycutt chose to leave most of it out. Here it is:

[FYI - The attorney general, as part of his job, has to review every bill before the General Assembly (except budget bills and a few others) to see if it comports with the Virginia and U.S. constitutions and current law. It's his job to tell legislators when their bills may have legal issues, and that's exactly what he did in this case.]

“While the attorney general does not support the federal light bulb ban as a matter of policy and hopes that Congress will repeal it, the primary job of the Office of the Attorney General is to make legal judgments on the law as it is, as opposed to how one might wish it to be. Based on the law as it currently stands, the federal light bulb ban is constitutional, and therefore, it would preempt HB66 under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

“Under cases dating back 70 years, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the Commerce Clause, when coupled with the Necessary and Proper Clause, allows Congress to regulate the production of commodities that, in the aggregate, have substantial effects on interstate commerce. Whether or not one agrees that those cases were correctly decided, they are presently the law. Because there is no question that light bulbs are a commodity for which there is a national market, the federal light bulb ban falls squarely within Congress’ powers as recognized by the Supreme Court.

“Recognizing that this is the current state of the law does not, in any way, undermine the commonwealth’s suit to overturn the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Unlike prior attempts to regulate the manufacture or sale of commodities for which there was a national market, Congress did something truly unprecedented with the individual mandate. It sought, for the very first time, to force citizens into commerce for the sole purpose of then being able to impose regulations. That is very different from the light bulb ban.

“We have stressed from the beginning that the Commonwealth’s challenge to the individual mandate was modest and that it did not seek to overturn any prior decisions of the Supreme Court, including Gonzalez v. Raich. In fact, in the Commonwealth’s complaint in the health care suit, we quote Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion in Gonzalez v. Raich, a case finding that the federal government could regulate a locally grown product that was never sold across state lines. Accordingly, anyone who says that recognizing the current state of the law as recognized by the Supreme Court undermines the health care suit is simply mistaken.”

– In other words, under current law — which in our system includes previous Supreme Court decisions — there’s not a lot that can be done. It would require a change in the law by Congress or more likely, a constitutional amendment.

The bottom line is that Ken Cuccinelli has not changed his position on federal overreach and continues to fight it on a daily basis, oftentimes in ways that the office can’t disclose for legal reasons. But in reviews of bills like this, he is required to give his best legal assessment of whether or not a bill comports with the law and can be defended in court if it’s challenged.

Ms. Moore affirmed she would be in favor of continuing the County’s affiliation. Mr. Elswick, and Mr. Church both polled opposite. We had no such understanding from either of the Republican members of the Board who ultimately voted with Ms. Moore to continue membership in ICLEI.

Though the Board did not decide in our favor Tuesday, it’s important to pause and recognize that though we believe their decision will affect us in very personal ways, we should not take the decision as a personal afront.

A visibly uncomfortable Supervisor Altizer, at one point in his explanation, gave us the solution. He said, (paraphrasing) “…if we’re not doing our job, we should be voted out of here.”

Bingo. Channel your frustration into replacing Mr. Altizer at the first available opportunity. The County staff (with a couple exceptions) are accountable to the County Administrator, who serves at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors.

We should also bear in mind, simply removing the ICLEI logo from a website doesn’t necessarily free anyone from the agenda. This will be an ongoing operation even after that initial step is finally taken to discontinue the County’s affiliation.

It was a tough night for Liberty, but we’ve seen tougher.