Tenth Amendment Center: The Struggle for American Independence: Disaster in New York


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

In this episode, I cover Britain’s first failed attempt at invading the South in Charleston, S.C., where Charles Lee and William Moultrie organized an impressive defense of the city, forcing the British to abandon their plans and sail northward. I also tackle Britain’s invasion of New York, which took place shortly after the states had declared their intention to separate from the British crown.

In many ways, Washington’s stand in Manhattan proved disastrous for the Continental Army. It narrowly escaped total capture and allowed Howe to take New York City. Finally, I cover Benedict Arnold’s foray into Canada, which failed to secure a patriot foothold in the region and expel British forces from North America. As 1776 proved, the Patriots were not off to a very good start in a war that would consume their energies for many more years.

WATCH

Gordon Wood, The American Revolution

David McCullough, 1776

Murray Rothbard, Conceived in Liberty


Dave Benner
August 30, 2018 at 11:59AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Cicero: Restored Liberty Bites More Fiercely


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

As fond as Americans are of referencing the founding fathers, we should also keep in mind that those men drew much of their philosophy and ideas on liberty and governance from classical thinkers whose writings are just as relevant today as when they were first written.

One passage from Quintus Curtius’ translation of Cicero’s Duties:  A Guide To Conduct, Obligations, And Decision-Making offers a philosophical argument for decentralized power and warnings against overreach by political leaders. Although Cicero’s counsel was directed to individuals rather than politicians, it is still worth noting.

He writes:

Of all possible things, nothing is more felicitous in gaining and guarding the hopes of men than to be held in high esteem. And nothing is more alienating from those hopes than to be feared. Fear is a poor sentry of long reliability. But devoted good will on the other hand can stand guard in perpetuity.

He writes further (bold emphasis added):

But for those rulers who command their populations with an iron fist, cruelty must certainly be used, just as one might do against a domestic servant if no other means is available. Yet nothing is more insane than the actions of those who in a free society create conditions such that they must be feared. Whenever the laws has been submerged under the force of some unjust chicanery, and whenever liberty hides her face in fear, inevitably at some point silent courts emerge or secret voting on some public office takes place. Restored liberty bites more fiercely than liberty continuously retained. We must therefore adopt that most widely-appreciated policy not only safety sake, but for the value it brings to the wealth and opportunities of the many that we banish fear and hold tightly to mutual affection. Those rulers who wish to be feared must necessarily fear those same people who they seek to rule.

While Cicero wrote these words in the days of the dying Roman Republic that would eventually turn into an empire under Julius Caesar’s dictatorship, they are nevertheless applicable to so many current federal government programs such as the War on Drugs, welfare, gun control, and the surveillance state – programs that not only require expensive bureaucracies but actions against innocent people that can only be described as cruel.

It is no wonder we have gone from a society in which anyone who wished could visit the White House and meet the president, to needing expansive security measures wherever the chief executive goes. No doubt, much of that is due to the enormous power modern presidents possess over far more people than in the past. However, one can safely conclude that leaders who either desire or feel compelled to use cruel methods to perpetuate unjust and unconstitutional agendas have just reason to be feared.

Such a policy yields results, for a time. Yet, at some point, liberty will be restored, and as Cicero observed, its return will be much harsher than if it had been preserved in the first place.

Something America’s rulers should consider carefully.


TJ Martinell
August 30, 2018 at 11:46AM

Daily Journal: Why Does CNN Hate America?


No one can deny that liberal corporate media hates America after hearing these the facts of just two incidents in America; one a criminal immigrant, and the other a hard working American. See how these political prostitutes disguised as journalist expose and classify themselves as America haters. The only question that remains is why. Don’t […]

The post Daily Journal: Why Does CNN Hate America? appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.



Read the full article at krisannehall.com August 30, 2018 at 11:58AM

Tenth Amendment Center: No! Enforcing Unconstitutional Acts Will Not “Save the System”


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

Apparently, a lot of people want the feds to enforce unconstitutional laws because refusing to do so will “break the system.”

Last week, we released a report showing the Trump administration has ramped up enforcement of federal gun laws. ATF enforcement actions were up more than 10% in the first year Trump was in office compared to Obama’s last year.

Several people wrote to take issue with the report, arguing that the president is obligated to enforce every law. Here’s one example.

“This is inappropriate.  You are complaining that under Trump the laws are being enforced.  You have to be kidding.  Do you really want your public officials to decide what laws they will enforce and what laws they will not?  Our country is a mess because special interests encourage their public officials to commit official misconduct toward their benefit. If you disagree with the gun laws, do what you can to change it, but don’t undermine the entire system to serve a personal interest.”

In other words, our emailer thinks it’s imperative to enforce every law, no matter how constitutionally dubious, because refusing to do so will break the system. His devotion to the process actually leads him to believe failing to follow it constitutes “official misconduct, even to stop an unconstitutional action”

The truth of the matter is enforcing an unconstitutional act is wrong in and of itself. You could refer to it as official misconduct. As Alexander Hamilton asserted in Federalist #78. an unconstitutional law is “void.”

You don’t enforce “void” laws.

Of course, the counter-argument is that the president has to enforce the law until a federal court declares it unconstitutional.

Thomas Jefferson disagreed. He said each branch of the government is responsible for protecting the integrity of the Constitution, no matter what the other branches do. In an 1819 letter to Judge Spencer Roane, he wrote.

…each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially, where it is to act ultimately and without appeal.

James Madison agreed with Jefferson. As a member of the First Congress, he made a speech on the House floor saying, “It is incontrovertibly of as much importance to this branch of government as to any other, that the Constitution should be preserved entire. It is our duty, so far as it depends on us, to take care that the powers of the Constitution be preserved entire to every department of government.” [Emphasis added]

Later, Madison wrote in an 1834 letter to an unknown recipient:

“As the Legislative, Executive & Judicial Departments of the U. S. are co-ordinate, and each equally bound to support the Constitution, it follows that each must in the exercise of its functions, be guided by the text of the Constitution according to its own interpretation of it; and consequently, that in the event of irreconcileable interpretations, the prevalence of the one or the other Departmt. must depend on the nature of the case, as receiving its final decision from the one or the other, and passing from that decision into effect, without involving the functions of any other.” [Emphasis added]

Pres. Andrew Jackson made the same point even more clearly in his national bank veto.

“The Congress, the Executive and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.” 

I’ll take this a step further. If the president enforces a law he knows is unconstitutional, he commits treason.

That may sound like an extreme statement, but that’s exactly what St. George Tucker said. In the first systematic commentary on the Constitution, he wrote:

“If in a limited government, the public functionaries exceed the limits which the constitution prescribes to their powers, every such act is an act of usurpation in the government, and, as such, treason against the sovereignty of the people, which is thus endeavored to be subverted and transferred to the usurpers.” [Emphasis added]

Every person who swears an oath to defend and protect the Constitution takes on the obligation to act when anybody threatens it – that includes people in other branches of the federal government. Insisting that the president must enforce every law, including those that clearly require the exercise of powers that were not delegated to the federal government, undermines the Constitution. Enforcing unconstitutional acts does not uphold the rule of law. It obliterates it.

People like our emailer who claim nullification destroys the system miss the point. Usurpation of power and unconstitutional acts already threaten to destroy the system. Letting these acts continue because of fidelity to some mythical process doesn’t save the system. It breaks it down further.


Mike Maharrey
August 30, 2018 at 08:40AM

Tenth Amendment Center: The “Other” Preamble


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

TAC memberships help us produce more educational tools like this. Members can download this video and read the full transcript here.

You’re probably familiar with the preamble to the Constitution. Maybe you even memorized it in school. But most government-schools never teach that the Bill of Rights also has its own preamble.

FOLLOW TAC:

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest
Twitter: http://twitter.com/tenthamendment
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/


Michael Boldin
August 29, 2018 at 04:56PM

Tenth Amendment Center: 3D Guns: They Don’t Want Him Doing This, He’s Doing it Anyway. Good Morning Liberty 08-29-18


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

On this episode of Good Morning Liberty, host Michael Boldin (follow) discusses the latest news on the court case and heroic actions of Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed. Plus Jeff Sessions jumping in the fray – unsurprisingly – on the wrong side.

SHOW LINKS
Cody Wilson Press Conference Report

Mises Institute: Jeff Sessions is a Gun Grabber

Donate to Defense Distributed

Quote of the Day

FOLLOW TAC:

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest
Twitter: http://twitter.com/tenthamendment
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/


Michael Boldin
August 29, 2018 at 01:03PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Today in History: John Locke was Born


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

Today in 1632, John Locke was born. One of the most influential political philosophers and Enlightenment thinkers, his theories on natural law, social compact theory, property, monetarism, and republicanism have had a profound effect on the development of the western world.

Locke believed that humanity was inherently cooperative and tended to work for the mutual benefit of individuals, which contrasted greatly with the outlook of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He contended individuals were vested with liberty by their creator – as an extension of their own humanity – and that such rights were pre-political. He argued that property itself was a natural right, derived from the exertion of one’s own labor. According to Locke, government cannot “dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily.”

According to Locke, humans formed a social compact with each other in order to protect life, liberty, and property – the sole purpose of any just social arrangement. Any government that departed from this vision, he thought, could be justifiably altered and abolished – forcibly if necessary – by those which lived within it.

This vision greatly influenced Thomas Jefferson, an avowed Lockean, who stressed these ideas in the Declaration of Independence.

Out of the social compact theorists, Locke had by far the most influence on the founding generation in the American states. Historian Clinton Rossiter wrote that “Locke rode into New England on the backs of Moses and the Prophets.” Patriot lawyer James Otis wrote that “the authority of Mr. Locke has been preferred to all others.” Benjamin Franklin said that Locke was one of the “best English authors” in the fields of history, rhetoric, logic, moral and natural philosophy. Richard Henry Lee went as far as to describe the Declaration of Independence as a copy of Locke’s work. Thomas Jefferson called Locke one of the three greatest men that ever lived.


Dave Benner
August 29, 2018 at 12:56PM

The Shocking Truth About Political Parties & Primaries


The Shocking Truth About Political Parties by KrisAnne Hall, JD   Parties are not government. We seem to be very confused on this fact quite regularly. But knowing this is essential to keeping the proper perspective on elections. Often chairmen of a political party will require their party’s presidential candidates (or any other candidate) to […]

The post The Shocking Truth About Political Parties & Primaries appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.



Read the full article at krisannehall.com August 29, 2018 at 01:16PM

Daily Journal: Monkeying Around Not Monkeying It Up


Listen as we discover the racist things that people say when they are running for office. Yep, its political season again!  Time to get your political power cards out, especially that Ace of Spades, the “race card”… oh wait, was that racist? Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE so you get the Daily Journal delivered right to […]

The post Daily Journal: Monkeying Around Not Monkeying It Up appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.



Read the full article at krisannehall.com August 29, 2018 at 12:57PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Hemp and CBD Industry Growing Rapidly in Vermont


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

MONTPELLIER, Vt. (Aug. 29, 2018) – Hemp production is starting to boom in Vermont, despite federal prohibition.

In 2013, the Vermont legislature passed a law legalizing and licensing hemp production at the state level. The Vermont law does not limit hemp cultivation to research purposes, as required under federal law. When Gov. Peter Shumlin signed the Vermont hemp bill, he emphasized that cultivation was still illegal under federal law.

“Although the growing of hemp will now be legal under Vermont law, it remains subject to federal anti-drug statutes. That means that farmers who choose to grow hemp do so at their own risk and need to be aware of the possible consequences”

The minimal possibility of federal prosecution has not stopped some growers from taking advantage of the opportunities they see with the door now cracked open to develop a hemp market in the state. And there have been no consequences.

Hemp cultivation in Vermont has grown each year since the state legalized the plant. In 2014, Netaka White planted 8×8 foot plot of hemp with seed she obtained illegally from France. Several other growers planted small plots that year. By 2016, Vermont had about 60 acres of hemp growing in 12 locations. According to the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, this year the state has more than 400 registered growers cultivating nearly 3,000 acres of industrial hemp.

Carl Christianson is in the process of turning an old Hostess Twinkie plant in Battleboro into a CBD processing facility. His company has invested more than $150,000 into renovating the space.

“We see hemp as being something that could be quite advantageous to the state because the state needs new revenue. It needs new industry. But it doesn’t want to abandon who it is,” he said in an NPR interview.

And what is Vermont? As the NPR host put it:

“It’s the Green Mountain State, dotted with picturesque small towns, food co-ops, farmers markets and some of the best craft breweries in the country. And now, fields once used for hay are now filled with lush, green hemp plants 10-feet tall.”

Joe and Rebecca Pimentel started growing hemp on their farm last year. They also opened a commercial kitchen in a nearby town where they produce CBD-infused honey and ointment.

It’s not just small farmers getting into hemp. Outside money is flowing into the state. According to NPR, the Green Mountain CBD farm in Hardwick got a $5 million investment from an out-of-state venture capital firm. And Alejandro Bergad’s company has ramped up CBD production to an industrial scale. He said his factory currently produces 60,000 CBD capsules per day. He projects his company will produce upwards of 1 million capsules per day by next year.

CBD has proven effective in treating a number of medical conditions, including seizures, pain and anxiety. The NPR report notes that the FDA forbids CBD producers from making health claims. It doesn’t mention that the DEA considers all CBD sales in the U.S. illegal. As the rapidly growing hemp industry in Vermont indicates, federal prohibition has virtually zero effect at this point.

People in the cannabis industry who argue that CBD is legal over the counter rely on the “hemp amendment” in the 2014 farm bill. But the law only legalized hemp production for limited purposes. It “allows State Agriculture Departments, colleges and universities to grow hemp, defined as the non-drug oilseed and fiber varieties of Cannabis, for academic or agricultural research purposes, but it applies only to states where industrial hemp farming is already legal under state law.”

In 2016, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Drug Enforcement Agency released a “statement of principles” to guide interpretation of the hemp section in the Farm Bill. It states, “The growth and cultivation of industrial hemp may only take place in accordance with an agricultural pilot program to study the growth, cultivation, or marketing of industrial hemp established by a State department of agriculture or State agency responsible for agriculture in a State where the production of industrial hemp is otherwise legal under State law.”

In short, the current federal law authorizes farming of hemp – by research institutions, or within state pilot programs – for research only. Farming for commercial purposes by individuals and businesses remains prohibited.

The definition of “commercial” remains murky and has created significant confusion.

The statement of principles also asserted that industrial hemp programs are limited to fiber and seed. It didn’t mention CBD oil or other edible hemp products. The DEA has interpreted that to mean they remain illegal. According to the DEA, CBD cannot be sold under any circumstances.

An Indiana TV station interviewed DEA spokesman Rusty Payne.

“It’s not legal. It’s just not.”

Payne says cannabis plants are considered a Schedule I controlled substance, and medicinal oils derived from cannabis plants are illegal according to two federal laws: the Controlled Substance Act and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. He said confusion surrounding the Agricultural Act of 2014 (better known as the “Farm Bill”) is frequently cited as legal justification by those who want to manufacture, sell or use CBD oil. The DEA believes the Farm Bill permits only CBD research — not CBD marketing and sales.

“Anybody who’s in violation [of the federal laws] always runs that risk of arrest and prosecution,” he said.

Nevertheless, people across Vermont are producing, selling, buying and using CBD – nullifying the federal law in practice and effect.

When the state ignored federal law and legalized industrial hemp, it in effect stepped out of the way. The market is beginning to respond. When you remove barriers, markets grow – or in this case, thousands of acres of hemp.

 


Mike Maharrey
August 29, 2018 at 08:50AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Tenther Tuesday Episode 41: News from the Nullification Movement


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

Today is day 586th day that the GOP has failed to repeal Obamacare, or gun control, or end mass warrantless surveillance. That’s why it’s so important for us to reject any plan of action that relies on getting the federal government to limit the power of the federal government.

In this episode of Tenther Tuesday – Michael Boldin and Mike Maharrey talk about some of the latest news in the 10th Amendment and nullification movement including efforts to stop warrantless federal surveillance, nullify federal hemp prohibition and undermine the Federal Reserves monopoly on money.

WATCH

SHOW LINKS

Iowa High Court Nullifies Horrible U.S. Supreme Court Fourth Amendment Precedent

Illinois Hemp

Colorado Hemp

Arizona Sound Money

Fake Money, Sound Money and Government Malfeasance

The Fourteenth Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine


Mike Maharrey
August 28, 2018 at 02:10PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Study: Police Militarization Targets Minority Communities and Provides No Safety Benefits


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

A study published by Jonathan Mummolo, assistant professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University, reveals that law enforcement is hiding important facts about police militarization.

The study titled “Militarization fails to enhance police safety or reduce crime but may harm police reputation” reveals a very important fact.

“Militarized police units do not appear to provide the safety benefits that many police administrators claim.”

Mummolo studied data from 9,000 police departments many of which refused to reveal the “presence of militarized police units or their activities.”

The study shows that militarized police units are more often deployed in communities of color. “I show that militarized police units are more often deployed in communities with high concentrations of African Americans,” Mummulo said.

Mummolo’s study confirmed what many of us already knew, the “results are consistent with the descriptive claim that Black residents face a pronounced risk of experiencing militarized policing.” The study also warned that “repeated exposure to police in militarized gear could help to cement negative views of law enforcement in the mass public.”

Police Militarization Erodes Public Opinion

Mummolo warns, “the normalization of militarized policing in the United States has raised concerns that a new, heavy-handed policing strategy is being used in similar ways and is eroding public opinion toward law enforcement.”

So what can we learn from this study?

Police have used 9/11 and the War on Drugs as an excuse to militarize police and target minorities.

A new national study from the School of Public Affairs and Administration at Rutgers University-Newark reveals that a disproportionate percentage of black men are killed by police each year.

“They found that African Americans are killed by police more than twice as often as the general population.”

If one thing is certain it is this, law enforcement does not like to be criticized. It won’t be long before they spin these studies into a fairy tale.

This article was originally published on MassPrivatel.


jprivate
August 28, 2018 at 01:46PM

Daily Journal: Legislation Shows Feds Create & Congress Funds Fake News


A former FBI agent says the FBI makes news then uses that news to get warrants. I want to show you how the FBI thinks that’s all legal. 2 pieces of legislation passed in 2012 & 2014 passed by Congress not only “authorizes” the government to make news to manipulate the American people, but also […]

The post Daily Journal: Legislation Shows Feds Create & Congress Funds Fake News appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.



Read the full article at krisannehall.com August 28, 2018 at 01:27PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Jeff Sessions Wants to Confiscate Your Guns


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

by Ryan McMaken, Mises Institute

Jeff Sessions wants to confiscate your guns. At least some of them.

Last week, U.S. Attorney General announced he plans to step up prosecutions of people who make “undetectable” firearms, such as the 3D-printed guns that have recently received attention. According to the AG’s website:

Statement of Attorney General Jeff Sessions on State of Washington v. U.S. Department of State:

The Department of Justice yesterday filed a brief in opposition to a preliminary injunction in the State of Washington v. U.S. Department of State, a case about 3D printed guns.

After the filing, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued the following statement:

“Under federal law, it is illegal to manufacture or possess plastic firearms that are undetectable. Violation of this law is punishable by up to five years in prison. Such firearms present a significant risk to public safety, and the Department of Justice will use every available tool to vigorously enforce this prohibition. We will work with federal, state and local law enforcement to identify any possible cases for prosecution.

“We will not stand for the evasion, especially the flouting, of current law and will take action to ensure that individuals who violate the law by making plastic firearms and rendering them undetectable, will be prosecuted to the fullest extent.”

Considering that Sessions has also pledged to step up prosecutions of persons who use marijuana where it is legal under state law, one might be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that Jeff Sessions’ favorite past time is locking peaceful Americans in prison. Sessions was so unhinged in his drive to intervene in state legal affairs that even GOP senators had to intervene to get the Trump administration to back off.

This, however, should not be surprising. As Mike Maharrey has pointed out, the Trump administration has been enthusiastically prosecuting a war on private gun ownership in recent years:

[D]uring Trump’s first term, ATF enforcement of federal gun laws increased in every single category compared to the last year Obama was in the White House.

We can start with the number of firearms cases investigated. In 2016, the final year of the Obama administration, the ATF investigated 31,853 firearms cases. During Trump’s first year, the agency investigated 35,302. That’s 3,349 more firearms cases than under Obama, a 10.81% increase. (See Footnote 1)

We see similar increases in other enforcement categories during Trump’s first year. There were 786 more cases recommended for prosecution, 789 more indicted cases, and 630 more defendants convicted. (See Footnote 2)

The ATF also investigates arson, cases involving explosives, and alcohol and tobacco cases, but these make up a small percentage of the total. Under Trump, 92% of the cases investigated by the ATF involved firearms. It was slightly less under Obama – 90%.

ATF enforcement of federal gun laws under Trump increased at roughly the same trajectory as it did during the last three years of Obama’s second term. In other words, the NRA-backed, GOP protector of the Second Amendment was no better than the Democratic Party gun-grabber,  and continued to ramp up enforcement of federal gun control.

It’s unlikely, however, that Trump will receive any flack for this from Republicans. It’s the usual song and dance: these are “illegal” guns, after all. So, respect for peaceful exchange and private property rights can just go right out the window. It’s the usual blind spot of the “law and order” conservative.

But what’s the difference between a legal gun and an illegal one? It’s the same difference between a legal or illegal drug — or a legal and illegal immigrant. It’s a totally completely arbitrary designation made up by legislators. If an employer wants to offer a job to a worker without the proper government paperwork? Well, that’s “illegal,” and the right of free contract goes right in the garbage. Someone wants to sell you a gun without filling out the proper government paperwork? Well, that’s punishable with years in a government cage. That fact that all parties involved might be peaceful otherwise-law-abiding citizens is meaningless to government prosecutors.

Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is the editor of Mises Wire and The Austrian. Send him your article submissions, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado, and was the economist for the Colorado Division of Housing from 2009 to 2014. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

This post was originally published at Mises.org and is reposted here under a CreativeCommons, Non-Commericial 3.0 license.


TAC Daily Updates
August 28, 2018 at 08:45AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Nullification Is Not Just Politics; It’s About Better Lives for All of Us


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center
Working day after day on nullification efforts, it pretty easy just to think of it as politics and forget these efforts have real impacts on the lives of real people. I’ve been thinking about that a lot lately because I am now experiencing the benefits of nullification first-hand. I have pretty severe osteoarthritis in my hip.…
Mike Maharrey
August 28, 2018 at 08:41AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Fake Money, Sound Money and Government Malfeasance


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

Americans no longer carry gold and silver money in our pockets and purses as our grandparents did. But we still carry the history, legacy, and spirit of those gold and silver coins in our language.

“Sound money” embodies a clear message recognized for centuries around the world. It describes the musical, metallic ring of a gold, silver, or copper coin dropped on any hard surface of glass, stone, wood, or metal.

Sound money literally refers to real wealth, with a natural, unmistakable signature of authenticity, as opposed to the paper, plastic, and electronic debt instruments used almost exclusively today.

The term “sound money” has its roots in Ancient Rome, where small, silver coins were standard in everyday commerce, whether used for paying Roman soldiers or buying exotic goods from all corners of the known world.

As Rome squandered its wealth, it found a shortcut to shore up the treasury. It gradually debased those silver coins with common metals, ultimately cutting the silver content to just 5 percent.

That didn’t fool anyone for long. Understandably, disciplined Roman soldiers did not appreciate being paid with worthless mystery metal in return for risking their lives on Rome’s bloody battlefields.

History is wrought with economic distortions resulting from currency debasement by central planners. Appreciation for gold and silver has been driven out of the public consciousness. Today, there is little understanding of what money actually is, its origins, and the folly of politicians and financial “experts.”

What is Money?

Austrian economist Carl Menger explains that the origins of money are spontaneous. The barter system’s shortcomings were quickly exposed by the problems of divisibility and “double-coincidence of wants.”

A farmer can tender corn and wheat in exchange for medical services, but what if the town doctor already has all the corn and wheat he needs?

Market actors realized that they could acquire more goods by tendering a more sought-after, or “saleable,” commodity as payment.

The most marketable goods establish themselves as common media of exchange. The marketability differences between commodities serve to discern between them; it is in this way that money undergoes competition. Through this process, gold and silver rose as the most marketable commodities due to their features: The metals are portable, homogenous, divisible, durable, and scarce.

Through market processes, the “most marketable commodity,” as economist Ludwig von Mises described money, makes itself known. Money is not created by government decree, but rather by surviving the test of time and the pressures of market forces while maintaining its value.

What is Fake Money?

Less than a hundred years into the American experiment, the Civil War began. Wars are expensive, and the federal government, which had a policy to only print notes that were backed by an equal amount of gold and silver, was running low on specie.

To fund the Civil War, President Lincoln signed the Legal Tender Act in 1862, which allowed the U.S. government to print $150 million worth of unbacked paper notes. The force of government was used to legitimize this fake, fiat money of the nature we still use today.

Lincoln and his money managers knew citizens would be wary of unbacked paper notes. After all, the Constitutional Convention that took place less than 75 years prior had overwhelmingly rejected paper money.

George Washington wrote that paper money was “wicked.” James Madison wrote it was “unjust” and “unconstitutional.” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “its [paper money’s] abuses also are inevitable and, by breaking up the measure of value, makes a lottery of all private property, cannot be denied.”

Although not allowed by the Constitution, Lincoln’s government issued unbacked paper money, called Greenbacks.

But how could he get people to accept them in exchange for their goods and services? Lincoln made them legal tender for debts (but not customs duties, which still had to be paid with gold or silver coin).

Legal tender is a stamp of approval by the federal government that magically turns strips of unbacked paper into money people must accept, if begrudgingly at first. By the end of the war, nearly half a billion unbacked notes had been issued.

As always happens with paper money, the Greenbacks lost buying power. At their low point, it took $265 in Greenbacks to buy $100 worth of gold. Legal tender allowed debtors who had borrowed money (gold or silver coin) before the Civil War to repay debts with Greenbacks that had less than half the buying power of the original loan.

Creditors were understandably furious over this swindle. When the war ended, the constitutionality of printing unbacked notes was heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in Hepburn vs. Griswold (1870).

Chief Justice Chase, who had been Lincoln’s Secretary of the Treasury and who had imposed legal tender, said that there is no legal tender power in the Constitution. He said that legal tender was a war measure used out of necessity. Since the war was over, so was legal tender.

On the same day the Hepburn decision was announced, two of President Grant’s nominations for Supreme Court Justice were appointed to the high court. The Legal Tender Act issue was reheard in Knox v. Lee (1871), and the Hepburn ruling was overturned. By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled that printing unbacked paper money was no longer unconstitutional, even when there is no war or emergency.

The next 60 years were marred by the destruction of sound money (not to mention the Constitution): establishment of the Federal Reserve System (which has served to devalue the Federal Reserve Note 97% since its creation, despite its mandate to maintain price stability), an unconstitutional income tax, gold confiscation by executive order, and the abrogation of gold clause contracts.

What came next should surprise no one. An explosion of government spending brings us to today. Bureaucrats saw the constraint that sound money placed on government spending as a bug rather than a feature, and America is now well down the road to financial disaster, shouldering more than $21 trillion in debt.

What is Sound Money?

Deriving its name from the powerful, melodic ring gold and silver make when dropped, signaling honesty and integrity, sound money is money that is not prone to sudden appreciation or depreciation in purchasing power over the long term, aided by self-correcting mechanisms inherent in a free-market system.

The foregoing definition presents several implications about how we view sound money and how we should approach money in general.

Central banks across the world manipulate money ostensibly to “grow,” or “stabilize,” or otherwise achieve their desired interventionist goals for the economy. However, large swings in the purchasing power of a money, such as that seen in the Federal Reserve Note, result from the same money manipulation that purports to solve the very problem it causes.

A negative consequence of central bank control of money is the disconnect between the money supply and the demand for money. Economic downturns strike when changes in the demand for money are not met with an automatic adjustment in its supply.

In the United States, today’s monetary system is antithetical to sound money. Money, including its supply, is controlled by unelected bureaucrats operating a government-backed banking cartel with no real constraints on its power.

Despite gold being a linchpin of the United States’ monetary system for most of our nation’s history, the U.S. severed its final link to gold in 1971.

After several millennia of being tested by market forces, gold and silver are undoubtedly sound money. It’s also possible that other sound monies could emerge. However, no government can replace the ringing echo of sound money from its system without grave consequences.

The process through which money is “created” is not one of central planning, but rather one in which money is “discovered” by markets. It would behoove us to realize and correct this mistake before it’s too late.

William Jennings Bryan, famous for repudiating the gold standard in favor of a bi-metallic standard that used both gold and silver, cried, “you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold!”

Bryan’s fears may have misplaced, however. For, instead, mankind has been crucified upon a cross of paper.


Jp Cortez
August 28, 2018 at 07:52AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Responding to the “Nothing to Hide” Argument in Support of Mass Surveillance


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

Whenever I talk about government surveillance, there is always “that guy” who claims if I’m not doing anything illegal I shouldn’t be concerned about it.

Well, I am concerned about it. I explain why in this short video.

WATCH


Mike Maharrey
August 27, 2018 at 01:27PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Recapturing the True Spirit of ’76


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

Isn’t the United States the greatest “nation” on earth? The Pledge of Allegiance tells us so, right?

Most Americans think so. They believe the Spirit of ’76 and the ensuing War for Independence birthed a unitary nation. But this notion has been fundamentally wrong since the Declaration of Independence was drafted and signed. The true Spirit of ’76 was rooted in the idea of republicanism, decentralization and self-government, not top-down centralized authority. And the political society the Spirit of ’76 birthed was a union of sovereign states, not a singular “nation.”

Most mainstream history professors, econ teachers, and political science teachers all share one erroneous belief in common. They embrace a “one-nation” conception of America. They view the United States as a unitary whole, not a union of independent states. They believe in top-down centralized control. And they pushed this “nationalist” conception through three false principles

The first false principle you are taught comes from the “divine” paragraph of the Declaration of Independence which States “all men are created equal.” This theory started with Lincoln and was pushed by people like Harry Jaffa or Eric Foner. Modern political thinkers have pushed this idea to mean we should strive for equality of outcome – government policy should promote sameness. That was not the founding era conception of equality. St. George Tucker, an early American lawyer and jurist who wrote the first legal commentary on the Constitution perhaps put it best.

“By equality, in a democracy, is to be understood, equality of civil rights, and not of condition. Equality of rights necessarily produces inequality of possessions; because, by the laws of nature and of equality, every man has a right to use his faculties in an honest way, and the fruits of his labor, thus acquired, are his own. But some men have more strength than others; some more health; some more industry; and some more skill and ingenuity, than others; and according to these, and other circumstances the products of their labor must be various, and their property must become unequal.”

While this phrase from the Declaration is often considered the foundation of American political philosophy, it wasn’t viewed as particularly important in the founding era. The Spirit of ’76 rested on the idea of self-government. The crowning jewel of the Declaration, and the key concept to understanding the union, was the fact that the states declared independence as 13 sovereign political societies, not one nation.

That leads to the second false principle you are taught – America is “one nation. We get this from the Pledge of Allegiance, which is used to engrain it into our heads as kids. The idea is fundamentally wrong. Alexander Hamilton, in the midst of the debates in Philadelphia, thought that the “reliance on pure patriotism had been the source of many of our (the framers) errors.” The pledge is nothing but an idea created by a Christian Socialist; Francis Bellamy, and his brother.

The third and final false principle you are taught in school is that America was created “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Unfortunately, virtually everybody gets the definition of “people” wrong. The true definition coined in the preamble of the Constitution means “constituents” or those vested with political rights in the communities of the states. A better way to put it is “people of the states.”

So you may be asking: if all those principles are wrong then what is the foundation of American government?

The answer to that is “Federalism.”

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines federalism as a “distribution of power in a government between a central authority and the constituents.” I would argue in this case that it’s not so much a central authority as it is a general authority. As it was explained in the ratifying debates, the new government was created for general purposes to be achieved by exercising specific powers delegated to it.

American Government was founded on the principles of a Federal Republic, or a Confederated Republic made up of sovereign states. Thomas Jefferson made this clear in the Declaration when he equated each North American state to the “state” of England. This principle was also laid out in the Articles of Confederation and serves as the foundation of the Constitution.

However, confusion arises because many people believe the general government is the head and has final authority over everything. This is wrong. The Constitution did not create a top-down government. The states came together to form a union. In doing so, they created the general government, to which they delegated powers. They also put in a series of checks and balances so that there could be no usurping of powers. “States’ rights” and nullification aren’t “myths” created by the Democrats before, during, or after the War Between the States. It is the states’ sovereign right to put a check on the power of the government.

Historian M.E. Bradford in his article “A Teaching for Americans: Roman History and the Republics First Identity” said in order to understand just what the Constitution and true federalism is, we must look at the Roman Republic model as our founders understood it

We can divide this into three time periods – the Republic during the rise of Roman (510 – 252 B.C.), the Era of the Punic Wars (262 – 202 B.C.) and the Decline toward Monarchy and Despotism (201 – 227 B.C.). The true Spirit of 76’ lies with the Roman Republic during these periods. Instead, we’re taught the spirit of 76’ was based on the Greek Republic whose foundation was in Democracy (This thought was echoed by Thomas Payne in his pamphlet “Common Sense”).

In his book “The American Democrat,” James Fenimore Cooper suggested that we also need to understand the founders understanding of the other Republics in order to understand our own. You had the Polish Republic, which unfortunately succumbed to a kingly election and nobody set the veto power. You also had the of Venice, which fell to the aristocracy, turning the state into a private advantage. These examples are but a few that turned our founders’ sights on the great Republic of Rome.

Cooper makes a bold statement saying, “Real Republics are good in theory, but tend to go so wrong,” meaning that most of the examples ended with a monarchy or despotism when power went unchecked or was abused. You can see that prior to the War Between the States, the Republican Party became that of Vince and was trying to use the power of the state to its advantage.

The founders choose a Federal Republic or a Confederated Republic because, in essence, it was:

  1. The best government for representation
  2. It was the best government for liberty and the working together of each party

This is what “Made America Great.” It was the only confederation in all of history that created a Republic but put significant restraints on the general government.

Even nationalist like James Wilson recognized the separation of powers between the states and the general government in his state house speech in Pennsylvania.

“It will be proper … to mark the leading discrimination between the State constitutions and the constitution of the United States. When the people established the powers of legislation under their separate governments, they invested their representatives with every right and authority which they did not in explicit terms reserve; and therefore upon every question respecting the jurisdiction of the House of Assembly, if the frame of government is silent, the jurisdiction is efficient and complete. But in delegating federal powers, another criterion was necessarily introduced, and the congressional power is to be collected, not from tacit implication, but from the positive grant expressed in the instrument of the union. Hence, it is evident, that in the former case everything which is not reserved is given; but in the latter the reverse of the proposition prevails, and everything which is not given is reserved.”

This idea was echoed by Madison, Jefferson, Tyler, Calhoun, Davis, etc.

As far as centralized government goes, the founders did all they could to prevent that from happening. The point is they believed decentralized government to be better based on their reading of the history of the Republics.

But this system has been virtually abandoned. Consider the emphasis on a Supreme Court pick on modern politics. John Adams’ midnight pick, John Marshall, shouldn’t have been able to operate under Hamilton’s blueprint under that Constitution. Hamilton’s nationalist vision and thirst for centralized power set an awful precedent for today. Now, SCOTUS judges virtually rule the country.

Meanwhile, the executive branch has taken on all kinds of power it shouldn’t have under the Constitution. Presidents including Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and every modern president went out of their way to destroy not only the Republic but every aspect of the Constitution.

Congress is also not free of blame. It has punted many of its duties to the executive branch and the Supreme Court.

Another downside to centralization is that it moves whole societies in the same direction at the same time. Centralized systems provide no dampening effect for adverse outcomes. This is like one giant wave as opposed to many small waves that dampen the effect of each other.

Centralized systems are also slow to move on anything. We often get lost in this “government can do all” attitude and fail to understand that top-down government has been the worst thing for our civil society.

Federalism was the answer from the beginning. The states took care of local problems within their sphere and the general government tended to general such as international relations, war and peace, and foreign trade. Virtually all of the general government’s power is focused on these objects.

In the end, we as a country cannot continue to believe that a centralized government is working for us, historically it hasn’t proved to work anywhere and will ultimately be the demise of this once great Republic.


JP
August 27, 2018 at 01:19PM

Tenth Amendment Center: 8 Ways Government is Destroying the Economy: Good Morning Liberty 08-27-18


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

On this episode of Good Morning Liberty, host Michael Boldin (follow) discusses an important article from FEE talking about 7 ways to wreck the economy and keep poor people down. Plus a bonus 8th item they missed that might be the driving force behind many of the 7. Hint, they’re all happening right now.

SHOW LINKS
Wells Fargo Cuts off Candidate

Colorado Credit Union vs Federal Reserve

Bitchute vs Stripe

ACLU warning

Quote of the Day

FOLLOW TAC:

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest
Twitter: http://twitter.com/tenthamendment
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/


Michael Boldin
August 27, 2018 at 01:10PM