New Jersey Stands Up to the Feds Over Unconstitutional Surveillance
The Free-Market News Network reports that New Jersey Stands Up to the Feds Over Unconstitutional Surveillance:
Nothing may come of this challenge! But may more states continue to stand up and resist the encroachments upon the Bill of Rights and the flagrant constitutional usurpations of the U.S. Government and the Bush administration. Earlier this year, South Dakota made headlines, as their Governor signed a bill outlawing abortion into law.
Even nationalists like Hamilton conceded in Federalist #28 on December 7, 1787, in his special pleading for adoption of the new Constitution, addressed to the people of the state of New York:
One generation later, Senator Robert Hayne of South Carolina, was merely making an observation commensurate with the original intent of the framers – when he declared:
New Jersey and the Federal government have begun a legal showdown over states rights, privacy rights, and the federal government's self-declared powers to spy on Americans, according to the New York Times.
The legal battle began when the Attorney General of New Jersey, Zulima V. Farber, issued subpoenas to AT&T, Verizon, Qwest, Sprint Nextel and Cingular Wireless in order to investigate whether the companies had violated state laws. The telecommunications companies may have broken contractual obligations with their customers when they gave information to the federal government without a search warrant. In retaliation to the action taken by New Jersey, the federal government has filed a lawsuit to block the subpoenas, arguing that the subpoenas would threaten national security.
Nothing may come of this challenge! But may more states continue to stand up and resist the encroachments upon the Bill of Rights and the flagrant constitutional usurpations of the U.S. Government and the Bush administration. Earlier this year, South Dakota made headlines, as their Governor signed a bill outlawing abortion into law.
Even nationalists like Hamilton conceded in Federalist #28 on December 7, 1787, in his special pleading for adoption of the new Constitution, addressed to the people of the state of New York:
It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty.
One generation later, Senator Robert Hayne of South Carolina, was merely making an observation commensurate with the original intent of the framers – when he declared:
But when Congress, (exercising a delegated and strictly limited authority) pass beyond these limits, their acts become null and void; and must be declared to be so by the Courts, in cases within their jurisdiction; and may be pronounced to be so, by the States themselves, in cases not within the jurisdiction of the Courts, or of sufficient importance to justify such interference.
