Utah Bill Could Shut Off Water to NSA Data Centerselfnews Post A bill proposed by state Rep. Marc Roberts seeks to do just that. Based on model legislation drafted by a transpartisan coalition organized by the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC) called theOffNow Coalition, the Fourth Amendment Protection Act would prohibit state material support, participation, or assistance to any federal agency that collects electronic data or metadata without a search warrant that particularly describes the person, place and thing to be searched or seized. This puts contracts that provide the 1.7 million gallons of water a day necessary to cool the NSA computers at its Bluffdale facility in the crosshairs. Without question, the mass surveillance and data collection by the Utah Data Center is a delicate and important matter, Roberts said. But for me, the language of the Fourth Amendment is clear. It simply protects us against unreasonable and unwarranted searches or seizures of our persons, private residencies and property, documents and information and personal and private belongings. This legislation preserves those rights to the people. Bluffdale, a political subdivision of Utah, provided the NSA with asweetheart water deal. The proposed legislation would begin the process of ending that deal, potentially crippling the NSAs ability to keep the facility functional. No water equals no NSA data center, TAC executive director Michael Boldin said. In 1975, Sen. Frank Church warned that the power of the NSA could enable total tyranny. He recommended that Congress should limit the agencys power. Almost four decades later, were still waiting. Congress is not going to stop the NSA. The people and their states have to, Boldin said. Turn it off. BORDC executive director Shahid Buttar echoed Boldins enthusiasm for state action. At stake is nothing less than our nations triumph in the Cold War. The NSAs decade of warrantless surveillance en masse assaults not only the rights of hundreds of millions of law-abiding Americans, and our democracy as a whole, but resembles Soviet-style spying on meth, empowered and amplified by the past generations remarkable advances in computing technology, he said. Utah residents have a chance to take matters into their own hands, defending democracy by shutting off state resources consumed by the Bluffdale data center in its assault on We the People, our fundamental rights, and the Constitution that enshrines them. Notable anti-establishment figures such as Naomi Wolf and Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg advise the BORDC. Utah doesnt stand alone. Earlier this week, a group of Maryland legislators introduced a similar bill, targeting water and other resources to NSA headquarters. Lawmakers in more than 10 other states, including California, Vermont and Alaska, have also introduced the legislation. A bill in Tennessee addresses material support and resources to the NSAs encryption-breaking facility at Oak Ridge. Boldin said other states need to join the push, even those without NSA facilities. He called it essential. If enough states do this in the coming years, the NSA wont have a place in the country where their spy centers are welcome, he said. Other provisions of the Fourth Amendment Protection Act would have an impact, too. The bill would make data collected by the NSA and shared with state and local law enforcement in Utah inadmissible in court, unless a specific warrant is issued. TAC national communications director Mike Maharrey said that this provision might prove as important as cutting off the water because it erases a practical effect of NSA spying. We know the NSA shares data with state and local law enforcement. We know from aReuters report that most of this shared data has absolutely nothing to do with national security issues, he said. This data sharing shoves a dagger into the heart of the Fourth Amendment. This bill would stop that from happening immediately. The legislation rests on a well-established legal principle known as theanti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot commandeer or coerce states into implementing or enforcing federal acts or regulations constitutional or not. The anti-commandeering doctrine rests primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. The 1997 case, Printz v. US, serves as the modern cornerstone. The majority opinion deemed commandeering incompatible with our constitutional system. Boldin emphasized this is just the beginning. It took the people of Illinois ten years to legalize marijuana for medical use, he said. This isnt going to be easy, and were not stopping until we win. The NSA has a choice; follow the constitution or get the hell out. The Tenth Amendment Center was the source for this article. TAC exists to promote and advance a return to a proper balance of power between federal and State governments envisioned by our founders, prescribed by the Constitution and explicitly declared in the Tenth Amendment. A national think tank based in Los Angeles, the Tenth Amendment Center works to preserve and protect the principle of strictly limited government through information, education, and activism. 