Tenth Amendment Center: Podcast: Ideology and the Constitution


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

After a seven month hiatus, Thoughts from Maharrey Head is back with episode #100!

We all have ideologies. They help us make sense of a complex world and provide us with a lens through which we can evaluate events. But ideologies can get us in trouble when we become unable to look outside of them. In this episode, I talk about the problems that inevitably crop up if you try to project your ideological point of view on the Constitution.

I also catch you up on what’s been going on over the last seven months and make an announcement about an exciting project I hope to release this spring.

You can subscribe to Thoughts from Maharrey Head for free on iTunes. Just click HERE.

SHOW NOTES AND LINKS

SchiffGold Friday Gold Wrap Podcast

Constitutional Interpretation – Living and Breathing is Dead

Crisis and Leviathan by Dr. Robert Higgs


Mike Maharrey
February 25, 2018 at 01:24PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Four Steps Toward Following Jefferson and Madison Today


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

From the beginning of our history, there have been many people such as Nathaniel Bacon, Tomas Jefferson, James Madison, President John Tyler, John Calhoun, John Taylor of Caroline and the Richmond junto who have championed the idea of nullification. Today, we look back through time and wonder how we can follow in the footsteps of those people even with this monstrous national government that’s grown exponentially since constitutional debates of 1787.

Hamilton was one of the first to spread an infectious disease called misconstruction. During speeches made in 1787, he argued for an elected king, and lifetime senators, thinking it would prevent usurpation of power. But a national government and a federal Republic can’t exist on the same foundation. The latter consists of the states and their constituents as a check and balance, and the former consisting of the people of the whole along submitted to pure majority rule and public opinion. Madison even said “a federal Govt. derived its appointments not immediately from the people, but from the States which they respectively composed,” meaning the states are in fact the only part of the compact needed to prevent the usurpations of power.

And who makes up the states?

We do!

The role of the states in the constitutional system was debated during the Philadelphia Convention. In fact, the delegates discussed whether the states should serve as a check and balance on the general government. Mr. Dickenson, of Delaware, illustrated the issue using the example of the sun and planets, basically saying you can’t take the states out of the picture otherwise the sun will cease to exist.

Within a few years after the ratification of the Constitution, the usurpation of powers had already started to take place. Jefferson and Madison went to work trying and stop these unconstitutional power grabs. Even though Madison was a nationalist during the drafting of the Constitution, he believed strongly that the delegated powers of the Constitution as ratified created a limited general government. In 1798, Jefferson and Madison wrote “The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of,” laying out the principles of nullification as a refusal to cooperate with the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts.

The Alien Acts were an unconstitutional power grab going strictly against Article 1 Section9 Clause 1 stating “The Migration or Importation of such Person as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.” Effectively they were saying, “No!” to the general government through means of nullification/refusal, because it was unconstitutional for the general government to come in and snatch people out of the state if the people of the state allowed them to be there.

Jefferson started off the Kentucky Resolutions with Resolved 1, stating “They constituted a general government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residual mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes in delegates power, its acts are unauthorized, void, and of no force…” Asserting that if the general government was going to try and usurp powers, it’s up to the people of the states to stop them.

In the Virginia Resolutions, Madison wrote that a state was “duty bound” to “to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil” when the general government overstepped its bounds

You might ask yourself currently how you can be like Jefferson and Madison in this crucial time of extreme usurpation of powers.

There are four steps you can take.

The first step is reading and understanding the Constitution. Knowing the enumerated powers in Article 1 section 8 is a great start. Ask yourself: just what powers did the states delegate to the general government? Then look at Article 1 section 10 to understand the negatives on the states. What can the states do? What can’t they do? Then repeat the 10th amendment many times. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

This serves as the foundation for where to start in this modern era, if we bring back this idea of nullification and restore power back to the states we can slowly crush this giant we are up against.

The second step is getting rid of the notion of party politics or majority rules. The parties have worked long and hard to deceive and divide us. If we fall in line with corruption, we only vote to despise each other and make it known that we voted in favor of our interest or the party interest. John C Calhoun said when addressing the second commission of the Bank of United States that “I am a partisan of no class, nor, let me add to either political party. I am neither of the opposition nor administration. …..” Calhoun was a strict constructionist, voting only for the Constitution. We, as constituents of the state, should vote only in favor of the Constitution and only by the Constitution. Let us fill in this hole that’s been dug.

The third step is to get very active at the local level. Know what’s going on in your own state. Brion McClanahan coined the phrase “Think Locally, Act Locally,” which is the strongest card we have today. We don’t need to worry about what’s going on in any state other than our own. You don’t need to worry about Washington D.C. Control your state and push legislation to nullify unconstitutional federal acts.

The fourth and final method is to defund the Treasury and nullify the Federal Reserve. Hamilton’s bank set things in motion. President Lincoln put a nail In the coffin with the “Legal Tender Act of 1863” and “The Legal Tender Act of 1864,” giving the government the ability to print money and control currency by levying a 10 percent tax on state bank notes. It was unconstitutional to create national paper money and incorporate a national bank in the first place. It also gave the federal government the ability to bring about inflation, debt, bankruptcy, loans, and economic instability. There are four strategies states can take to nullify the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money. By encouraging the use of gold and silver, we can undermine Federal Reserve notes and ultimately nullify the Fed.

The general government has grown into a behemoth that even Hamilton could have never dreamed of. It inserts itself into every nook and cranny of our lives. It even dictates how much water we can have in our toilets.

Utilizing these four steps, we can reclaim the spirit of Madison and Jefferson, and put the federal government back into the limited box it was intended to operate in.


JP
February 25, 2018 at 01:20PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Minnesota Bills Would Help Encourage the Use of Gold and Silver as Money


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

ST. PAUL, Minn. (Feb. 25, 2018) – Bills filed in the Minnesota legislature would exempt the sale of gold and silver bullion coins from state sales and use tax, encouraging their use and taking another step toward breaking the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money.

Rep. Jim Knoblach (R-St. Cloud) introduced House Bill 2812 (HF2812) on Feb. 20. Sen. Jerry Relph (R- St. Cloud) introduced the companion bill (SF2498) the same day. The legislation would exempt the sale of bullion coins from sales and use tax. The bill defines bullion coins as any coin “containing silver, gold, platinum, palladium, or other precious metal.”

Precious metal bullion defined as “bars or rounds that consist of 99.9 percent or more by weight of either gold, silver, platinum, or palladium and are marked with weight, purity, and content” are already exempt from sales tax. Passage of HF2812 and SF2498 would expand the exemption to include bullion coins.

Imagine if you asked a grocery clerk to break a $5 bill and he charged you a 35 cent tax. Silly, right? After all, you were only exchanging one form of money for another. But that’s essentially what Minnesota’s sales tax on bullion coins does. By removing the sales tax on the exchange of gold and silver, Minnesota would treat bullion coins as money instead of a commodity. This represents a small step toward reestablishing gold and silver as legal tender and breaking down the Fed’s monopoly on money.

We ought not to tax money – and that’s a good idea. It makes no sense to tax money,” former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul said during testimony in support an Arizona bill that repealed capital gains taxes on gold and silver in that state. “Paper is not money, it’s fraud,” he continued.

The proposed law’s impact would go beyond mere tax policy. During an event after his Senate committee testimony, Paul pointed out that it’s really about the size and scope of government.

“If you’re for less government, you want sound money. The people who want big government, they don’t want sound money. They want to deceive you and commit fraud. They want to print the money. They want a monopoly. They want to get you conditioned, as our schools have conditioned us, to the point where deficits don’t matter.”

Practically speaking, eliminating taxes on the sale of gold and silver coins would crack open the door for people to begin them in regular business transactions.This would mark an important small step toward currency competition. If sound money gains a foothold in the marketplace against Federal Reserve notes, the people would be able to choose the time-tested stability of gold and silver over the central bank’s rapidly-depreciating paper currency.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The United States Constitution states in Article I, Section 10, “No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” States have simply ignored this constitutional provision for years. It’s impossible for a state to return to a constitutional sound money system when it taxes gold and silver as a commodity.

These Minnesota bills take a step towards that constitutional requirement, ignored for decades in every state. Such a tactic would set the stage to undermine the monopoly of the Federal Reserve by introducing competition into the monetary system.

Constitutional tender expert Professor William Greene said when people in multiple states actually start using gold and silver instead of Federal Reserve Notes, it would effectively nullify the Federal Reserve and end the federal government’s monopoly on money.

“Over time, as residents of the state use both Federal Reserve notes and silver and gold coins, the fact that the coins hold their value more than Federal Reserve notes do will lead to a “reverse Gresham’s Law” effect, where good money (gold and silver coins) will drive out bad money (Federal Reserve notes). As this happens, a cascade of events can begin to occur, including the flow of real wealth toward the state’s treasury, an influx of banking business from outside of the state – as people in other states carry out their desire to bank with sound money – and an eventual outcry against the use of Federal Reserve notes for any transactions.”

Once things get to that point, Federal Reserve notes would become largely unwanted and irrelevant for ordinary people. Nullifying the Fed on a state by state level is what will get us there.

WHAT’S NEXT

SF2498 was referred to the Senate Taxes Committee and HF2812 was referred to the House Taxes Committee. Both bills will have to pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.


Mike Maharrey
February 25, 2018 at 01:18PM

Guns Collusion & The Supreme Court:


Get PDF Today we show you the huge Supreme Court decision against our rights last week; the REAL Russian collusion that has taken over DC not the ballot box; and the new gun arguments that are not happening because the real collusion is the media and the progressive destruction of America. Alternatively you can listen […]

The post Guns Collusion & The Supreme Court: appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.



Read the full article at krisannehall.com February 24, 2018 at 09:02AM

Tenth Amendment Center: “But nullification isn’t listed in the Constitution!”


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center
Nullification isn’t specifically listed in the Constitution. But that doesn’t mean you can’t do it.
Michael Boldin
February 23, 2018 at 03:26PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Kentucky Committee Approves Bill to Limit Drone Spying, Help Thwart Federal Surveillance Program


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

FRANKFORT, Ky. (Feb. 23, 2018) – Yesterday, a Kentucky Senate Committee passed a bill that would require police to get a warrant before engaging in drone surveillance in most situations. Final passage of this legislation would not only establish important privacy protections at the state level, it would also help thwart the federal surveillance state.

Rep. Diane St. Onge (R-Lakeside Park) and Rep. Reginald Meeks (D-Louisville) introduced House Bill 22 (HB22) on Jan. 2. The legislation would prohibit the use of a drone for a “search” unless authorized under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 10 of the Kentucky Constitution. This would require police to get a warrant before conducting drone surveillance in most situations. In order for the search to be valid, the warrant would have to specifically authorize the use of an unmanned aircraft system.

The proposed law would require police to minimize data collection on non-suspects and would prohibit the disclosure of any such data without a court order.

Any information collected in violation of the law would be inadmissible as evidence in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding in the state.

HB22 would also prohibit the operation of any drone equipped with a lethal payload.

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported HB22 favorably with an amendment. The amended language provides some liability exemptions for certain contractors and emergency responders using drones for non-surveillance purposes.

The House previously passed HB22 by a 94-0 vote.

A similar bill passed the Kentucky House during the 2017 session, but never made it to the Senate floor for a vote.

Impact on the Federal Surveillance State

Although the proposed law would only apply to state and local drone use, it throws a high hurdle in front of some federal programs.

According to a report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, drones can be equipped with various types of surveillance equipment that can collect high definition video and still images day and night. Drones can be equipped with technology allowing them to intercept cell phone calls, determine GPS locations, and gather license plate information. Drones can be used to determine whether individuals are carrying guns. Synthetic-aperture radar can identify changes in the landscape, such as footprints and tire tracks. Some drones are even equipped with facial recognition.According to research from the Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College, 347 U.S. police, sheriff, fire, and emergency response units acquired drones between 2009 and early 2017—primarily sheriff’s offices and local police departments.

Much of the funding for drones at the state and local level comes from the federal government, in and of itself a constitutional violation. In return, federal agencies tap into the information gathered by state and local law enforcement through fusion centers and a federal program known as the information sharing environment.

According to its website, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators… have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant.

The federal government encourages and funds a network of drones at the state and local level across the U.S., thereby gaining access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By placing restrictions on drone use, state and local governments limit the data available that the feds can access.

Currently, 18 states—Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin—require law enforcement agencies in certain circumstances to obtain a search warrant to use drones for surveillance or to conduct a search.

In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. This represents a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB22 will now move to the Senate floor for debate and a vote.

 


Mike Maharrey
February 23, 2018 at 01:41PM

Tenth Amendment Center: No Explanations Needed to Exercise Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

Do we have to justify our rights?

In response to one of my Second Amendment articles posted on the Tenth Amendment Center’s Facebook page, some commenters asked: “What is your position on school shootings,” and “How do we stop kids from shooting each other?”

It’s easy to see what they are getting at, but my response is this: Are you implying that my rights are contingent on my answer? Do I even have to give an answer at all if, in your eyes, I want to keep these rights?

If that is the case, are we going to start asking a free speech advocate how they intend to stop news publications from committing libel or people from spreading lies about each other on social media? Libel and defamation of character are both wrong, but that doesn’t change the fact that people have a right to speak and write what they wish, and it is not their duty to explain how they intend to prevent the misuse of those rights by others.

To do so places an unfair moral obligation on law-abiding citizens to explain or justify their rights whenever someone else commits a crime.

Certainly, solutions to horrible atrocities such as mass shootings can and should be discussed. Practical measures that do not violate individual rights should be considered, and if proven effective, implemented within the bounds of the Constitution. But the conversation has to begin by acknowledging that innocent, peaceful people do not have to defend their rights every time someone abuses that right in order to do evil, or even stipulate they create a political response that placates the person demanding one. This flips the whole notion of “innocent until proven guilty” on its head and leaves people in perpetual fear of losing their rights when a crime occurs. It makes them morally and legally responsible for the behavior of others.

It is perhaps incidental that this month marks the anniversary of FDR’s executive order calling for the internment of Japanese Americans following the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. To be sure, the comparison isn’t perfect, but the fact remains that more than 100,000 people had their basic civil rights violated by the government in response to a mass killing. Innocent Japanese-Americans shouldn’t have had to justify their ability to exercise their rights after Pearl Harbor any more than I do after what happened recently in Florida.

I don’t need to explain why I, or any other person, “needs” an AR-15 any more than I “need” a copy of Brothers Karamazov or a first American edition of 1984. It is my right to purchase and own them without having to give a reason to anyone.

Our right to keep and bear arms, like all other rights, does not come from general consensus or through sufficient persuasion of certain individuals. It is an unalienable right, bestowed by our creator, or nature, however you choose to look at it.


TJ Martinell
February 23, 2018 at 01:27PM