Ron Paul Introducing the Free Competition in Currency Act

December 12, 2009

The Modern-Day “Man of LaMancha” Before the US House of Representatives, December 9, 2009

Madame Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Competition in Currency Act of 2009. Currency, or money, is what allows civilization to flourish. In the absence of money, barter is the name of the game; if the farmer needs shoes, he must trade his eggs and milk to the cobbler and hope that the cobbler needs eggs and milk. Money makes the transaction process far easier. Rather than having to search for someone with reciprocal wants, the farmer can exchange his milk and eggs for an agreed-upon medium of exchange with which he can then purchase shoes.

This medium of exchange should satisfy certain properties: it should be durable, that is to say, it does not wear out easily; it should be portable, that is, easily carried; it should be divisible into units usable for every-day transactions; it should be recognizable and uniform, so that one unit of money has the same properties as every other unit; it should be scarce, in the economic sense, so that the extant supply does not satisfy the wants of everyone demanding it; it should be stable, so that the value of its purchasing power does not fluctuate wildly; and it should be reproducible, so that enough units of money can be created to satisfy the needs of exchange.

Over millennia of human history, gold and silver have been the two metals that have most often satisfied these conditions, survived the market process, and gained the trust of billions of people. Gold and silver are difficult to counterfeit, a property which ensures they will always be accepted in commerce. It is precisely for this reason that gold and silver are anathema to governments. A supply of gold and silver that is limited in supply by nature cannot be inflated, and thus serves as a check on the growth of government. Without the ability to inflate the currency, governments find themselves constrained in their actions, unable to carry on wars of aggression or to appease their overtaxed citizens with bread and circuses.

At this country’s founding, there was no government-controlled national currency. While the Constitution established the Congressional power of minting coins, it was not until 1792 that the US Mint was formally established. In the meantime, Americans made do with foreign silver and gold coins. Even after the Mint’s operations got underway, foreign coins continued to circulate within the United States, and did so for several decades.

On the desk in my office I have a sign that says: “Don’t steal – the government hates competition.” Indeed, any power a government arrogates to itself, it is loathe to give back to the people. Just as we have gone from a constitutionally-instituted national defense consisting of a limited army and navy bolstered by militias and letters of marque and reprisal, we have moved from a system of competing currencies to a government-instituted banking cartel that monopolizes the issuance of currency. In order to reintroduce a system of competing currencies, there are three steps that must be taken to produce a legal climate favorable to competition.

The first step consists of eliminating legal tender laws. Article I Section 10 of the Constitution forbids the States from making anything but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts. States are not required to enact legal tender laws, but should they choose to, the only acceptable legal tender is gold and silver, the two precious metals that individuals throughout history and across cultures have used as currency. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Congress the power to enact legal tender laws. We, the Congress, have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, but not to declare a legal tender. Yet, there is a section of US Code, 31 USC 5103, that purports to establish US coins and currency, including Federal Reserve notes, as legal tender.

Historically, legal tender laws have been used by governments to force their citizens to accept debased and devalued currency. Gresham’s Law describes this phenomenon, which can be summed up in one phrase: bad money drives out good money. An emperor, a king, or a dictator might mint coins with half an ounce of gold and force merchants, under pain of death, to accept them as though they contained one ounce of gold. Each ounce of the king’s gold could now be minted into two coins instead of one, so the king now had twice as much “money” to spend on building castles and raising armies. As these legally overvalued coins circulated, the coins containing the full ounce of gold would be pulled out of circulation and hoarded. We saw this same phenomenon happen in the mid-1960s when the US government began to mint subsidiary coinage out of copper and nickel rather than silver. The copper and nickel coins were legally overvalued, the silver coins undervalued in relation, and silver coins vanished from circulation.

These actions also give rise to the most pernicious effects of inflation. Most of the merchants and peasants who received this devalued currency felt the full effects of inflation, the rise in prices and the lowered standard of living, before they received any of the new currency. By the time they received the new currency, prices had long since doubled, and the new currency they received would give them no benefit.

In the absence of legal tender laws, Gresham’s Law no longer holds. If people are free to reject debased currency, and instead demand sound money, sound money will gradually return to use in society. Merchants would have been free to reject the king’s coin and accept only coins containing full metal weight.

The second step to reestablishing competing currencies is to eliminate laws that prohibit the operation of private mints. One private enterprise which attempted to popularize the use of precious metal coins was Liberty Services, the creators of the Liberty Dollar. Evidently the government felt threatened, as Liberty Dollars had all their precious metal coins seized by the FBI and Secret Service in November of 2007. Of course, not all of these coins were owned by Liberty Services, as many were held in trust as backing for silver and gold certificates which Liberty Services issued. None of this matters, of course, to the government, which hates competition. The responsibility to protect contracts is of no interest to the government.

The sections of US Code which Liberty Services is accused of violating are erroneously considered to be anti-counterfeiting statutes, when in fact their purpose was to shut down private mints that had been operating in California. California was awash in gold in the aftermath of the 1849 gold rush, yet had no US Mint to mint coinage. There was not enough foreign coinage circulating in California either, so private mints stepped into the breech to provide their own coins. As was to become the case in other industries during the Progressive era, the private mints were eventually accused of circulating debased (substandard) coinage, and with the supposed aim of providing government-sanctioned regulation and a government guarantee of purity, the 1864 Coinage Act was passed, which banned private mints from producing their own coins for circulation as currency.

The final step to ensuring competing currencies is to eliminate capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coins. Under current federal law, coins are considered collectibles, and are liable for capital gains taxes. Short-term capital gains rates are at income tax levels, up to 35 percent, while long-term capital gains taxes are assessed at the collectibles rate of 28 percent. Furthermore, these taxes actually tax monetary debasement. As the dollar weakens, the nominal dollar value of gold increases. The purchasing power of gold may remain relatively constant, but as the nominal dollar value increases, the federal government considers this an increase in wealth, and taxes accordingly. Thus, the more the dollar is debased, the more capital gains taxes must be paid on holdings of gold and other precious metals.

Just as pernicious are the sales and use taxes which are assessed on gold and silver at the state level in many states. Imagine having to pay sales tax at the bank every time you change a $10 bill for a roll of quarters to do laundry. Inflation is a pernicious tax on the value of money, but even the official numbers, which are massaged downwards, are only on the order of 4% per year. Sales taxes in many states can take away 8% or more on every single transaction in which consumers wish to convert their Federal Reserve Notes into gold or silver.

In conclusion, Madame Speaker, allowing for competing currencies will allow market participants to choose a currency that suits their needs, rather than the needs of the government. The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the US government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral. Restoring soundness to the dollar will remove the government’s ability and incentive to inflate the currency, and keep us from launching unconstitutional wars that burden our economy to excess. With a sound currency, everyone is better off, not just those who control the monetary system. I urge my colleagues to consider the redevelopment of a system of competing currencies and cosponsor the Free Competition in Currency Act.

Advertisements

Obama, Secessionist Movements and the Nobel Prize

December 11, 2009

by Russell Longcore

OSLO, December 10, 2009: Today, President Barack Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in a ceremony in which his speech was like a long commercial message promoting continued war. Obama gestured politely toward advocates of non-violence like Albert Schweitzer, Dr. Martin Luther King and Ghandi, but clearly stated that his intention for America is to be the policeman for the globe.

Here is an excerpt that should enlighten all Americans about what the President is thinking.

“Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”

It is not any secessionist movements anywhere on this globe that have trapped civilians in unending chaos. That is entirely the purview of the nation-state. Confiscatory taxation, unending regulation of every facet of human life, and the destruction of our economic system and currency through central planning is the source of unending chaos, both at home and abroad.

And the “Just War theory?” The only just war I know of is the war in which you are defending your own borders against invasion. Invading another country is unjust, and used to be unlawful.

Obama praised pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar, Zimbabweans who voted despite election violence, and pro-democracy protesters in Iran.

“It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any nation,” Obama said.

I wonder if Obama and the Mobocracy Looter Minions of Washington will still feel the same way when one of the United States serves him with a Secession Document.

President Obama, with his own words, shows the world that he is not familiar with the job description for President clearly stated in the US Constitution. He said:

“I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago – “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak -nothing passive – nothing naïve – in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people.”

What a shameful statement of ignorance.

A president is required by the Constitution (Article II, Section 1) to take the following oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

That oath says NOTHING about swearing to “protect and defend my nation.”

Most of the things Obama has done since taking office have been grossly, criminally unconstitutional. Mr. Obama would have a full plate of activities if he would just protect and defend our Constitution. If past presidents had stayed within the strictures of the Constitution, the USA would not have any threats today.

If America ever finds and elects a man or woman who will simply be true to the oath of office they take, America may have a chance of survival. However, no President since before Lincoln has been serious about the Oath. If history is any guide for our future, there is no Oath Keeper on our national horizon.

© Copyright 2009, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


Mikhail Gorbachev: How a REAL Communist Handled Secession

December 10, 2009

by Russell Longore

Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, a REAL Communist in the country that was the laboratory of totalitarianism, faced secession issues in his nation about 20 years ago.

Saint Gorby?


Can the “wannabe Communists” in Washington learn from this historical example? More importantly, can WE draw some lessons from the secessions that occurred back then, and apply them to the USA today?

For the sake of our own liberty, let’s try.

November 9, 2009, was the 20th anniversary of the 1989 “fall” of the Berlin Wall. What actually happened on that date twenty years ago was that the government of the German Democratic Republic announced that East Germans and West Germans would be allowed to visit each other freely. Throngs of East Germans climbed onto and crossed the wall. Over the next few weeks, people on both sides of the wall used sledge hammers to knock holes in the wall and topple large sections. Later, demolition crews removed most of the rest of the wall.

This event was a mind-blowing visual and emotional event worldwide, as we saw TV images of euphoric crowds celebrating, dancing and weeping at the Berlin Wall. Leonard Bernstein conducted a version of the Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony in Berlin during Christmas 1989, with the word “Freiheit” (“Freedom”) replacing “Freude” (“Joy”) in the “Ode to Joy”, to celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Few really believed that the Soviet Union would collapse after only 69 years of existence. The Soviets rivaled the USA in military might, and they were as imperialistic as the Americans, exporting Communism around the globe.

The images beamed around the world from the Berlin Wall were representative of what was happening in all 15 Soviet republics as their secession hastened the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Their Union unraveled, beginning in 1989 with the “glasnost” political reforms of Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. In 1990, newly-elected Russian President Boris Yeltsin led the Russian Congress to formally declare Russia’s sovereignty over its own territory, and began passing laws to supersede Soviet law. Russia was the largest republic in both territory and population in the Soviet Bloc.

But, Gorbachev and those in the Kremlin did not thwart the secessions. How could this have happened?

The USSR’s aggregate population in 1991 was around 293 million people. A national referendum was held on March 17, 1991, with the majority of the USSR’s population, in nine out of fifteen republics, voting for preservation of the Union. But it didn’t matter. After the attempted coup d’etat against Gorbachev in 1991, Yeltsin emerged as the strongman, and Latvia and Estonia declared their independence. The other republics joined the secessions soon thereafter.

How about military intervention? Lincoln did it in 1861.

Most of the Soviet armed forces were stationed in bases in Western Russia. That translates into a military force that was sometimes just hours away, and at the most a few days’ drive from their bases to the seceding republics. Plus, they had bases inside the borders of some republics. Gorbachev could have easily dispatched entire divisions of troops and tanks to seceding republics and inflicted heavy losses on civilian populations. And these troops were not involved in two wars outside their borders.

In January 1991, Gorbachev did indeed send some troops to Vilnius, Lithuania, to suppress secessionists, killing 14 civilians and injuring hundreds more. In July 1991, Russian OMON military police killed 7 Lithuanian servicemen. The USSR bore the weight of world criticism. But an authoritarian Communist leader does not refrain from the use of overwhelming force to put down secession simply because others object.

(Ironically, the USSR had their asses handed to them by the mujahidin of Afghanistan over a period of nine years. Many of those same Afghan fighters are handing the Americans their asses today.)

So in matters of military intervention to prevent secession, Gorbachev was less of a tyrant and totalitarian than Abraham Lincoln.

By December of 1991, the Soviet Union had ceased to exist.

Perhaps Mr. Gorbachev should be nominated for sainthood…or maybe a Nobel Peace Price. Oh, wait…he already got one of those in 1990.

This little bit of history should give secessionists all over America a boost in morale.

Consider these seven points:

1. The largest of the republics regained its sanity and seceded. That should give the Texas Nationalist Movement additional hope and perspective in their quest for a New Texas nation.

2. This event forever destroyed the “too-big-to-fail” theory. Said another way, the bigger they are, the harder they fall. Prior to collapse, the USSR had the second largest economy in the world after the USA. The Soviet economy was a centrally-planned disaster based on state ownership of industry and management of every facet of commerce. Washington is repeating the same central planning errors the Soviets could not make work. If the second largest world power in human history can dissolve in a matter of months, so can Number One when Number One is following the USSR’s exact footsteps.

3. Most of the people in the Soviet Union voted to maintain the Union, even though it had been the source of oppression and death for 69 years. That shows you how much suffering people will endure willingly…like sheep. That also shows you that the suffering masses desperately need moral leadership that is mostly non-existent in state houses and Washington.

4. Small republics like Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Lithuania and the rest of the 15 republics became sovereign nations once more. They have thrived since. Small American states will also thrive when they take their places among the sovereign nations of the world.

5. The USSR dissolution started when the Soviet republics rejected national laws that conflicted with local laws. That’s Nullification. The republics also refused to pay tax revenue to the Moscow government. More Nullification. This caused havoc in Moscow. In the USA, 39 American states have enacted sovereignty resolutions that assert their 10th Amendment rights. The American states are on the right path. Now will they do the right thing? (see Cowardice In State Government

6. The greatest complication for the American Federal Government, far greater than any complication that befell the Soviet Union, is that the US Dollar is the world’s reserve currency…the Ruble wasn’t. The nations of the world are forsaking the dollar because of Washington’s criminal counterfeiting ways over the years. Just as creditors can force a corporation into bankruptcy, the nations of the world will force Washington into bankruptcy and eventually the USA will dissolve.

7. Perception is not reality. I remember watching an episode of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” in which Buffy and her cohorts were preparing to fight the Fear Demon, the most dreaded of them all. Finally they met face-to-face. When the Fear Demon presented himself, he turned out to be about twelve inches tall with a squeaky voice. But he had projected an image as an unholy terror. Once Buffy and friends actually saw their adversary, they dispatched him quickly….after deriding him with gales of laughter. The lesson? The few people at the top of the Soviet power structure, who looked like the biggest and baddest of bad guys, were seemingly powerless to stop secession. Et tu, Washington?

So the fall of the Berlin Wall was much more significant to your future than you ever realized. Don’t miss the valuable lessons here. Just because America doesn’t have a big concrete wall doesn’t mean that we don’t have barriers to liberty. Oppressive government must be summarily rejected…and laughed at, and free people have a duty to either alter or abolish it.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

I thank George Rizk who emailed me and suggested the idea for this article.

Copyright © 2009, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


Bullion Is A Girl’s Best Friend

December 7, 2009

Secession and economic meltdown are kind of a buzz kill. So, we need to take a couple of minutes and lighten up.

Watch this video…it will make you smile.

Bullion Is A Girl’s Best Friend


Napolitano, Gutzman and Woods Talk Nullification

December 6, 2009

This segment of the Glenn Beck Show was aired on November 10, 2009. In it, Judge Andrew Napolitano interviews Kevin Gutzman and Thomas Woods. It runs about nine minutes.

Gutzman is a professor at West Connecticut State University and frequent contributor to LewRockwell.com. His newest book is “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.”

Dr. Woods’ is a New York Times best-selling author of nine books and Senior Fellow at The Mises Institute. His newest book is “Meltdown,” about American monetary policy.

They wrote a book together entitled “Who Killed The Constitution?”

View their interview here: Nullification Interview


Dear Glenn Beck: How About One Week for Nullification and Secession?

December 2, 2009

I enjoy watching your show on Fox News. You deliver astounding facts in an entertaining manner. And I am aware that you are FIRST an entertainer. You have been awarded a prime afternoon time slot because you are adept at entertaining and holding an audience so advertisers can charge confiscatory ad rates, thereby making a profit for Rupert Murdock.

I watch your hour-long program regularly, in which you provide unassailable proof of the widespread criminal behavior in Washington.

I hear a never-ending merry-go-round of subjects like:

ACORN
Van Jones
The Cloward-Piven strategy
The Federal Reserve
Democrats
Republicans
President Obama
Bailouts
Stimulus money
Economic meltdown
Cap and Trade
Global warming and “Climate-gate”
One world government
Health care legislation
Tea Parties and Freedom Rallies
War

But lately, watching has become tiresome.

You must be experiencing a level of frustration seldom known in human history. You are the watchman on the wall…a lone voice crying out in the wilderness…shouting against a howl of info-noise to the assembled citizens to warn them of the fast-approaching dangers. Few even hear you as you explain why Americans, many the victims of government chicanery, are losing their jobs and losing their homes.

And what about that audience? There is such a thing as “fear fatigue.” You already know your audience is experiencing it. You say that many people call or write to you, and are afraid and ready to give up. What you don’t tell them is that things are going to get much worse, and soon.

Glenn, the one glaring deficiency I see in your program is LACK OF A SOLUTION.

I believe that the American Federal Government has gone past the point of no return. Phoning, writing and emailing Congress will absolutely not change the direction of Washington. Tea Parties, Freedom Rallies and Tenth Amendment resolutions will have no effect on Washington. Yet, that is what you recommend to your audience. It only reinforces their feelings of helplessness.

But there is a legal, moral and ethical solution to Washington’s criminal ways:

State Sovereignty. Specifically, State Nullification and finally, State Secession.

Over the last 150 years, the American states have been relegated to the status of large counties. They have voluntarily given up their sovereignty, abandoned their militias, and become sucklings to the Federal sow. Americans must focus locally once again, and each state must become the final arbiter of its own destiny…even if that means that it secedes from the Union.

Want to affect Washington? Leave them to their own devices. State secession pulls the plug on Washington’s life support system…which is inevitably money.

How about a few shows dealing with the only truly viable solution to end Washington tyranny? Nullification and Secession.

There are a good number of Nullification and Secession experts you can interview, many of whom have been guests on your show in the past.

Brilliant minds like:

Lew Rockwell, Chairman of the Mises Institute and Editor of LewRockwell.com
Thomas Naylor, Professor Emeritus, Duke, founder of 2nd Vermont Republic
Dr. Kevin Gutzman, Professor at Western Connecticut State Univ.
Daniel Miller, President of Texas Nationalist Movement
Kirkpatrick Sale, Director of The Middlebury Institute for Secession Studies
WA State Rep. Matthew Shea, author of a recent white paper on Nullification
Judge Andrew Napolitano, Constitutional scholar
Thomas DiLorenzo, College professor and Expert on Abraham Lincoln
Dr. Thomas Woods, Author and Senior Fellow at The Mises Institute

Would this be a bridge too far for you, Glenn? Would Fox News even allow you to air such broadcasts? Would there be a firestorm of invective coming back at you from the Main Stream Media if you began to recommend Nullification and Secession as the Final Solution? Could you withstand the weight of the criticism you know would result from this kind of stand?

I leave it to you, Glenn. Want to vastly increase your audience? Want to be the subject of hot conversation around the world? But most of all…do you want to offer REAL SOLUTIONS to hurting Americans to take back liberty in their own lifetimes?

Run a week of shows in which you explore Nullification and Secession.

What have you got to lose?

Sincerely,
Russell D. Longcore
Marietta, Georgia
http://www.DumpDC.com
Six Letters That Can Change History
Following the growing Secessionist Movement in America

PS: Speaking of advertisers, you have some national advertisers selling gold and gold stocks during your show. I think that your advertisers may know something you do not know.


Resist DC: A Step-by-Step Plan for Freedom

December 1, 2009

by State Rep. Matthew Shea (WA-4th)

(Editor’s Note: We issued a challenge on November 20, 2009 to state legislators in all 50 states to write position papers about secession and nullification. Rep. Shea is the first one to answer that challenge. Three cheers for Matthew Shea!)

This summer, legislators from several states met to discuss the steps needed to restore our Constitutional Republic. The federal government has ignored the many state sovereignty resolutions from 2009 notifying it to cease and desist its current and continued overreach. The group decided it was time to actively counter the tyranny emanating from Washington D.C.

From those discussions it became clear three things needed to happen.

1. State Legislatures need to pass 10 key pieces of legislation “with teeth” to put the federal government back in its place.
2. The people must pass the legislation through the Initiative process if any piece of the legislative agenda fails.
3. County Sheriffs must reaffirm and uphold their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

With the advent of the Tea Party Movement, many people have been asking how exactly we can make the above reality. What follows is Part I of the outline of that plan regarding state legislation, the action steps any concerned citizen can take to see this legislation to fruition, and the brief history and justifications behind each.

Step 1: Reclaim State Sovereignty through Key Nullification Legislation

Our Constitutional Republic is founded on a system of checks and balances known as the “separation of powers.” Rarely, however, are the states considered part of this essential principle.

Enter the “doctrine of nullification.”

Nullification is based on the simple principle that the federal government cannot be the final arbiter of the extent and boundaries of its own power. This includes all branches of the federal government. In the law this is known as a “conflict of interest.”

Additionally, since the states created the federal government the federal government was an agent of the states; not the other way around. Thus, Thomas Jefferson believed that, by extension, the states had a natural right to nullify (render as of no effect) any laws they believed were unconstitutional.

In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 he wrote,

“co-States, recurring to their natural right…will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within their respective territories.”1

Alexander Hamilton echoed this sentiment in Federalist #85 “We may safely rely on the disposition of the state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.” 2

It is clear then that State Legislatures can stop the unconstitutional overreach of the Obama administration through nullification. Here is a list of proposed nullification legislation to introduce in all 50 States.

1. Nullification of Socialized Health Care
2. Nullification of National Cap and Trade
3. Federal Enumerated Powers Requirement
4. Establishment of a Federal Tax Escrow Account

If imposed, socialized health care and cap and trade will crush our economy. These programs are both unconstitutional, creating government powers beyond those enumerated by the Constitution. If those programs are nullified, it will give the individual states a fighting chance to detach from a federal budget in freefall and save the economies of the individual states.

Next, blanket nullification.

The Federal Government, particularly the House of Representatives, needs to abide by its own rules. In particular, House Rule XIII 3(d) specifically states that:

“Each report of a committee on a public bill or public joint resolution shall contain the following: (1) A statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or resolution.” 3

Needless to say, this rule is generally ignored. The idea behind blanket nullification is that if the Congress does not specify the enumerated power it is using according to its own rules, or the power specified is not one of the enumerated powers granted to Congress in the United States Constitution, then the “law” is automatically null and void.

Lastly, the federal government cannot survive without money. I know that seems obvious but many states are missing the opportunity to use money as an incentive for the federal government to return to its proper role. Most visibly, states help collect the federal portion of the gasoline tax. That money should be put into an escrow account at the state level and held there. The Escrow Account legislation includes a provision that all consumer, excise, and income taxes payable to the federal government would go through this account first. This would do two things. First, it would give states the ability to collect interest on that money to help offset revenue shortfalls. Second, it would allow states to hold that money as long as needed as an incentive for the federal government to return within the enumerated boundaries of its power.

Step 2: Erect an impenetrable wall around the County Sheriff and the 2nd Amendment.

As recently stated in the famous Heller opinion by the United States Supreme Court, the right to bear arms “is an individual right protecting against both public and private violence” and “when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized they are better able to resist tyranny.” 4

Thus, it is clear that the 2nd Amendment not only protects the right to self-defense but that right extends to defending oneself against tyranny. As with any historical attempt to establish a dictatorship weapons must be seized or severely regulated. 5

Here is a list of legislation to prevent this from happening, some of which has already been introduced in states around the country:

* Sheriff First
* Extension of the Castle Doctrine
* Prohibition of Gun and Ammunition Tracking
* Firearms Freedom Act

The county Sheriff is the senior law enforcement officer both in terms of rank and legal authority in a county. This comes from a tradition of over 1000 years of Anglo-Saxon common law. Anglo-Saxon communities were typically organized into “shires” consisting of approximately 1000 people. 6

The chief law enforcement officer of the shire was the “reeve” or “reef.” Hence, the modern combination of the two words, as we know them today, “shire reef” or “Sheriff.” 7

Consequently, the Sheriff’s pre-eminent legal authority is well established. This was confirmed in Printz v. United States. 7 Justice Scalia quotes James Madison who wrote in Federalist 39:

“In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.”9

Sheriff 1st legislation would formally declare that all federal agents and officers must give notice of, and seek permission before, any arrest, search, or seizure occurs. Thus, federal agents and officers seeking to enforce unconstitutional laws must go through the county Sheriff first.

Extending the castle doctrine to one’s person would go a long way toward eliminating the arbitrary “no carry” areas. Like Virginia Tech, it is these areas where guns for self-defense are most needed.

Many gun and ammunition tracking schemes have been, and are still being, attempted. The intended purpose of “reducing gun related” crime is never realized. Instead, law-abiding citizens are punished with regulatory burdens and fees. Quite simply we need transparency in government not in the people.

Montana started the firearms freedom act to rein in the federal government’s use of the Commerce Clause to regulate everything within the stream of commerce. The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to regulate commerce between states not within states as Professor Rob Natelson points out in his 2007 Montana Law Review article.10

The Montana FFA simply returns to that original understanding regarding firearms made, sold, and kept within a state’s borders.

This list is by no means exhaustive. However, it does contain some immediate steps that can be taken toward freedom and restoring our God honoring Constitutional Republic. Hitler’s laws of January 30 and February 14, 1934, should serve as a stark reminder of what happens when state sovereignty is abolished.

In the coming few weeks I will publish the next part of the plan.

Matthew Shea is a State Representative in Washington’s 4th District. He’s the author of HJM4009 for State Sovereignty. Visit his website at: http://www.houserepublicans.wa.gov/shea/.

Send him email at: https://dlr.leg.wa.gov/MemberEmail/MailForm.aspx?Chamber=H&District=4&Position=2

Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com.

NOTES:
# 1. Kentucky Resolution of 1798, Thomas Jefferson, Adopted by Kentucky Legislature on November 10, 1798.
# 2. Federalist No. 85, Publius (Alexander Hamilton), August 13 and 16, 1788.
# 3. Rules of the House XIII 3(d), “Content of Reports,” Page 623, 110th Congress.
# 4. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (Actual Pages 11, 13) (2008)
# 5. Id at (Actual Page 11).
# 6. http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/ancient/1859-teutoburg-forest-the-battle-that-saved-the-west
# 7. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=sheriff&searchmode=none
# 8. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
# 9. Federalist No. 39, Publius (James Madison), January 16, 1788
# 10. Tempering the Commerce Power, 68 Mont. L. Rev. 95 (2007).