How Much More Will We Take?

Michael. Do I get into the TenthAmendmentCenter Hall of Fame for article with most comments? :-)

Ha, ha!

Barack Hussein Obama, as I've said before, is such an illegitimate, inexperienced fool, that he can have (even at this point) no earthly idea about what he's gotten himself into. This is evidenced by the mere fact that virtually everything he involves himself in publicly is (rightly) taken as an affront to historical Americanism. One would think that such an "articulate" figure would be smart enough to avoid the clearly hostile implications which his speeches invariably incorporate. But, no, like I've said from the gitgo, he's totally and completely oblivious to them. What a useful idiot!

The one worrisome thing about any idea of secession is that Obama may follow (his inspirational hero) Lincoln's lead and have a civil war on his hands.

I see it not as a matter of will everyone think what everyone else does is okay after a secession. I highly doubt that. We certainly don't agree with all that England or France does, but we get along with them just fine (for the most part).

I see no problem existing that way and being the happier for it.

I would as soon see the Union stick together, but these clowns in D.C.... They are ruining it for all of us.

Jeff,

Believe it or not I've actually quoted that exact Hotel California line myself (several times) in these same kinds of discussions.

And don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that a state seceding would necessarily result in an immediate aggressive counter-move by the national government (although that, to me, seems like the most likely scenario if some latitude is given to the term "immediate, for the reasons I've already listed and more.). On the other hand, I can hardly envision a "fractured" America (an America that does not universally recognize a single central governing authority) that could live in mutual peace and harmony for very long. So when I say that secession means civil war, I'm saying that a fractured America, from the very moment that it fractures into different (independent) governing entities and onward, is an America whose exposure to internal disputes automatically increases exponentially. Independent governing entities have, by nature and by necessity, authority to enter into treaties with other nations and states, coin money, provide for its own defense, declare war, and so forth and so on. So in the end, it all boils down to internal disorder between the various governing entities, and civil war. At least that's the way I see it. And let's face it, there's no love lost between certain states and certain others in this union. But anyway...

I see the issues you raise, Terry. I imagine it is possible to manufacture a "Fort Sumter" scenario all over again.

I find the whole scenario kind of eerie in a "Hotel California" sort-of way. "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave."

"I ca just see it now. After secession, the first 2 FAQ’s on the State of Texas website will be:

“Do I still need to send in a federal income tax return?”

“Will I still get my federal income tax refund?”"

ROTFL!!

Or how about this one: "I am still a U.S. citizen, right?"

"I ca just see it now. After secession, the first 2 FAQ’s on the State of Texas website will be:

“Do I still need to send in a federal income tax return?”

“Will I still get my federal income tax refund?”"

ROTFL!!

Or how about this one: "I am still a U.S. citizen, right?"

Jeff,

A flyover state like Oklahoma (perceived by the general public to be populated by a bunch of ungovernable backwoods hillbillies) secedes. Upwards of thirty percent of its citizens cry foul. The U.S. government has an interest in that thirty percent because they are also U.S. citizens who disagree with Oklahoma's move to secession. On top of everything else that group would be perceived as victims of an aggressive majority population whose rights would be threatened, and the U.S. government would be pressured (as if that would be necessary) to come to their rescue. And on and on and on.

Now, you can say I'm letting my imagination run away with me, but it doesn't make it so. And you can't simply say "not on your life," "fat chance, it isn't going to happen." That's a bit weak, don't ya think? But what in God's name does the fed care about world perception on the subject of a seceding American state? 'The World' routinely puts down such movements. So whose side do you think it would take?

I can imagine any number of scenarios involving secession that would ultimately result in bloodshed, but I can't imagine a single scenario that would not. Nonetheless...

I'm content to leave it at that. We'll undoubtedly see eventually because a state will definitely cross over that rubicon at some point in the not too distant future. And I imagine that others will soon follow. Until then, it's all just speculation on our parts. But I'll wager a cup of coffee on it if you like. ;-)

I ca just see it now. After secession, the first 2 FAQ's on the State of Texas website will be:

"Do I still need to send in a federal income tax return?"

"Will I still get my federal income tax refund?"

You are all letting your imaginations get the better of you. Our federal government will not start a war with a seceding state. Think about it and tell me who will. Congress? Not on your life! The President? Fat chance. It will not happen. The feds would rather write them off than suffer the blow in the world's eyes of having a civil war - not to mention the cost of such a war.

"The one thing about Waco, though, was that it was secretly torched."

True. But let me just point out that that was after the 'compound' and the people in it were ruthlessly attacked (by land and air) by a bunch of jackboot thugs who had already tipped off the media and everything else. So what, in reality, is different about it?

The ATF wasn't too concerned about the image it was going to project, other than it concerned itself pointedly to projecting the image of POWER wielded for the noble cause of 'justice'. Not to mention that there was a fifty one day 'standoff' in which all manner of evil and lewd and lascivious behavior was going on at the hands of our illustrious government law enforcement officers taking their orders straight from the top (granted, this was all concealed). But the Congressional hearings on the matter, in which such things came out, were an absolute joke in which the government was made to look like the innocent and noble victim of a bunch of religious crazies in spite of it all.

Yeah; I can see that happening again.

Constutional convention or secession...This is why it is important - NO, it is CRUCIAL, to take over the state legislature. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. The tenth amendment is about the states. We should be focusing on the states. We should be looking at pulling people out of office via recall. We shouldn't be waiting to just vote them out. Rip them out.

The good news is that WE THE PEOPLE happen to live in the states, not WE THE FEDERAL GOVERNNMENT.

...even by a (large) segment of its own citizenry, by the way; a segment of the citizenry that enjoys a form of dual citizenship - state and national.

You guys are making the point and then missing it. What do you think a seceding state would be made to look like but a bunch of nutjobs hostile to the United States? C'mon.

Also, Waco was perceived as a small group of nutjobs. It's far different than taking on a whole state.

The one thing about Waco, though, was that it was secretly torched. Attacking a seceding State would have to be open and overt war, so the dynamics are different. At Waco, they had to conceal the arson and murder of 80 people, including women and children, and thus play homage to virtue and moderation by hiding what they wre really like and lengths they willing to go to. With a seceding State they could not conceal the aggression and killing. The whole facade of pretending to be righteous would have to be shed.

A government capable of a Waco style massacre, is capable of just about anything.

If correct, this would a great inducement to secede, since there would be much to gain and little to lose. Considerations tending to make hopeful that thngs may come to a head one way or another include the economic realities of our nation and the impending collapse of the dollar. Without this I doubt we would be talking at all today. Also, I have to believe the present administration's hostility to all things American, its desire to control guns, to take over health care, to socialize our country, etc. all have people scared. There is an arroagance that it is going to push its domestic agenda (Bush's was largely forgeign) right down all of our throats. We saw this same thing with Clinton and Janet Reno and witnessed Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Oklahoma City. The present administration shows every sign of the same sort of arrogance. And, frankly, I welcome it. I hope they push the envelope just far enough that some State actually secede. It is the best thing that could possibly happen to the cause of liberty in the West.

On the other hand, the one thing that makes me worry that nothing of significance will change is the fact that there are so few men of conviction and religous conscience in government today. Without deep convictions growing out of traditional Biblical values (it was Jesus who said 'the kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, but it shall not be so with you. But he that would be greatest among you, let him be the servant of all.' And this is the source of the idea that government is the servant not the master of the people.) We just don't have the quality of men in government we had in Colonial time or the civil war era. Men today are tepid and insipid castrates, lacking moral courage and resolution, with almost nothing they seem to really be willing to live and die for. There is almost no provocation or outrage we are not willing to passively swallow. If this were not so, there would have been more Tenth Amendment Resolutions long, long ago.

No way we'd have civil war if one or more states seceded. Not in these days of thinking we Americans are above the fray. We have it in our minds that civil wars and unrest are for the Middle East and perhaps, Korea, but not for here. We are far too good a people for that. There is no way the feds would even dream about it. They'd be pissing their pants, thinking about what to do, but there is no way, they'd invoke martial law and start shooting, dropping bombs, throwing grenades, and launching rockets. Not if it happened now.

I know what you mean but tread carefully. Take caution not to dishonor the memories of our men and women who have sacrificed their lives. Our words are public record and I would not want their resolve compromised by words that can be taken to imply that their service and sacrifice is meaningless.

I know that's not what you are saying, I'm just saying that our words have consequences, and they are easily subverted to serve quite another purpose.

I don't want to get into this discussion of what war is right and what is wrong, because it is another matter. Ostensibly, I think we started a war in Iraq for the right reason under intelligence that we had but rationale and justification morphed into a completely different animal due to political forces and updated intelligence.

To answer your question, I don't many states are considering a con-con because it, rightly so, scares the living shit out of them. I don't think we have much of a choice to make all the necessary changes to the constitution that need to be made that will effectively castrate the federal government in one fell swoop. This attitude will change as the our congress and presidential administration make manifest all the limiting laws,taxes, nationalizations that they truly intend to enact in blitzkrieg fashion.

All they need to do is to create the crisis to justify the pretext for more control.

Which I personally think is the design. Crash the dollar and take over critical infrastructure.

There is the possibility that a con-con itself could actually result in a number of states seceding from the union. Still, I would be supportive of an Article V Convention simply because I prefer to know, with a reasonable degree of certainty, what the terms and conditions are. Also, it would be quite difficult for the courts to misinterpret and misapply, purposely or not, the intent of the convention in its proceedings.

And, yes, it should be taken as a given that whenever we speak of secession, we're speaking of peacefully walking away. Whenever I mention secession that's exactly what I'm talking about. When I say it means civil war, I'm assuming the aggressor will the central government.

You know, thousands of young men die in wars that have NOTHING to do with our liberty or Constitution, but to build empire overseas. How much better to die fighting for freedom right here where it counts most? Who gives a flip about Iraq? It is our freedom that is worth fighting for. Still, one would hope a con-con would solve the issue before secession were necessary. But, then, are there any people in State Legislatures even talking or thinking about it????

I agree with you completely Patrick.

I too question whether a civil war a necessary consequence. I hope it doesn't come to it, but I agree with you, secession is a lever, a constitutional convention is another, however states must be willing to follow through once they've committed themselves.

Hopefully Washington would come to its senses but maybe it will take secession to do it. States could re-join the union at a later time but it would be on the State's or States' terms. The States would be in the driver seat.

"I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it."

For the record, I do not condone or advocate any aggression, violent or otherwise. Secession must be peaceful. If violence should result, then I believe we would be justified in meeting force with force.

However, I am not sure that a civil war would break out. As the world's only super power we are very conscious and careful of our public image. We pontificate about petty dictators oppressing their people; we send food in behind our troops to feed civilians in lands we have invaded, etc. It would be a very delicate situation for self-righteous America, always on the self defense about how just and moderate its actions are, to send the troops in to slaughter its own people, who peacefully secede and just want to be left alone. Sort of like the British bombing the Scotish if and when the choose to leave.

Moreover, God's providence can come to our rescue. A war in Afghanistan, another in Iraq, maybe Iran, and North Korea. One must weigh their priorities. Would they have troops and money to spare to feed a war at home and several more abroad?

Personally, I see secession as a lever. One that we must be willing to follow through with, but one hopefully we would never need use, but that would bring Washington to its senses. Think of world opinion when a block of States complains that they are being oppressed by fed gov and are ready to secede and fight if need be. Could the feds really behave heavy handed and survive world opinion?

If it should come to a time when the need to Secede is the only solution left on the table, then I think the avenue of peaceful secession should be at least attempted. The federal government would need a sound moral pretext to attack a state, or states; If the state doesn't provide the federal government with the tools to construct a veneer of righteousness, they will be hard pressed to lay a state to siege. I have no doubt that they will certainly avail themselves mightily to look for the justification.

It might have happened anyways, but I wonder if the Civil war would have happened if South Carolina hadn't fired on Fort Sumpter and touched off the powderkeg.

In light of the various stages in legislation that state sovereignty movements are in for several states, I can't help but wonder in the event that when situations become more dire, when the economy crashes around us, and that states are left with no other means to redress their grievances, if a constitutional convention cannot even fix our problems, that states may secede in unison. Many states. Many states being in geographically different locations, would present a difficulty to militarily block such a trend. That is also assuming that the military doesn't splinter under the divided loyalties. I would not be surprised to see a large exodus of soldiers who would not agree with attacking a state or states, especially under a left wing socialist administration that really has no respect for the military in the first place. Members of the military aren't stupid, they know how the left largely holds them in contempt.

There are many of us don't care what sacrifices are needed, I am willing to do whatever is necessary to restore liberty.

"The only real argument to hold the Union together is sentimental, since for many Americans the proposition of breaking apart our country sounds repellent and treasonous. But I ask you what is a worse fate for America: To remain geographically united while our founding principles burn to the ground? Or to fracture geographically while our founding principles receive a new lease on life?

To my mind, the first of these options commits the worst sin of modern times, which is to elevate the body over the soul. I would rather live in a small nation with America’s soul intact than a large nation with America’s soul extinct."

"The denial of the right to secede from a voluntary union is itself a primary justification for secession"

If it should come to a time when the need to Secede is the only solution left on the table, then I think the avenue of peaceful secession should be at least attempted. The federal government would need a sound moral pretext to attack a state, or states; If the state doesn't provide the federal government with the tools to construct a veneer of righteousness, they will be hard pressed to lay a state to siege. I have no doubt that they will certainly avail themselves mightily to look for the justification.

It might have happened anyways, but I wonder if the Civil war would have happened if South Carolina hadn't fired on Fort Sumpter and touched off the powderkeg.

In light of the various stages in legislation that state sovereignty movements are in for several states, I can't help but wonder in the event that when situations become more dire, when the economy crashes around us, and that states are left with no other means to redress their grievances, if a constitutional convention cannot even fix our problems, that states may secede in unison. Many states. Many states being in geographically different locations, would present a difficulty to militarily block such a trend. That is also assuming that the military doesn't splinter under the divided loyalties. I would not be surprised to see a large exodus of soldiers who would not agree with attacking a state or states, especially under a left wing socialist administration that really has no respect for the military in the first place. Members of the military aren't stupid, they know how the left largely holds them in contempt.

There are many of us don't care what sacrifices are needed, I am willing to do whatever is necessary to restore liberty.

"The only real argument to hold the Union together is sentimental, since for many Americans the proposition of breaking apart our country sounds repellent and treasonous. But I ask you what is a worse fate for America: To remain geographically united while our founding principles burn to the ground? Or to fracture geographically while our founding principles receive a new lease on life?

To my mind, the first of these options commits the worst sin of modern times, which is to elevate the body over the soul. I would rather live in a small nation with America’s soul intact than a large nation with America’s soul extinct."

"The denial of the right to secede from a voluntary union is itself a primary justification for secession"

A couple of comments on Patrick Henry Lives's post:

(1) Secession, as I've said before at this site, means civil war. We shouldn't kid ourselves about that BECAUSE to do so (to kid ourselves about the undeniable results of secession) would put us in the precarious situation of not being prepared to follow through on a movement so solemn as secession, so what would be the point? It doesn't matter that you want "peaceful" secession; it is simply not in the cards. Period. And if you think it is, you're thoroughly deluded.

(2) Patrick Henry Lives wrote:

"We cannot decide if unbridled lust and unnatural appetites that debase men and cause one man to put his penis in another man’s mouth or rectum is conduct injurious to the morals and welfare of the people of our States."

Such openness about the concrete realities of homosexuality is rare among modern Americans. I mean, let's face it, even homosexuals do not attempt to advance the homosexual agenda on this basis -- because they know how very offensive it is to decent, moral human beings. Kudos, my friend, for your willingness to address the concretes of a problem that is, in its very essence, self-destructive and abjectly immoral.

A couple of comments on Patrick Henry Lives's post:

(1) Secession, as I've said before at this site, means civil war. We shouldn't kid ourselves about that BECAUSE to do so (to kid ourselves about the undeniable results of secession) would put us in the precarious situation of not being prepared to follow through on a movement so solemn as secession, so what would be the point? It doesn't matter that you want "peaceful" secession; it is simply not in the cards. Period. And if you think it is, you're thoroughly deluded.

(2) Patrick Henry Lives wrote:

"We cannot decide if unbridled lust and unnatural appetites that debase men and cause one man to put his penis in another man’s mouth or rectum is conduct injurious to the morals and welfare of the people of our States."

Such openness about the concrete realities of homosexuality is rare among modern Americans. I mean, let's face it, even homosexuals do not attempt to advance the homosexual agenda on this basis -- because they know how very offensive it is to decent, moral human beings. Kudos, my friend, for your willingness to address the concretes of a problem that is, in its very essence, self-destructive and abjectly immoral.

Agreed. I have been writing a speech for our July 4th TEA Party. As I consider where we stand at this moment in history, it is difficult see any way out. We are come to a choice. We either prepare ourselves morally and emotionally for secession and war if necessary to defend it, or we resolve to live passively as slaves under the federal power.

We cannot teach what we want in our classroom to our children; we cannot open our school day with prayer to the author of our being and liberties; we cannot display the Ten Commandment upon our court house lawn, or the cross of Christ over veterans fallen in foreign wars; we cannot recite (according to some) the word "God" in the pledge of allegiance. We cannot decide for ourselves whether it shall be lawful for a man to destroy God's handiwork in a woman's womb - to carve to pieces LATE TERM, VIABLE pre-born babies in the ninth month of pregnancy.

We cannot decide if unbridled lust and unnatural appetites that debase men and cause one man to put his penis in another man's mouth or rectum is conduct injurious to the morals and welfare of the people of our States. Nay, rather, the federal power gives these crimes and criminala especial promotion and protection. It gives them prosecutorial priority and protection against so called "hate crimes".

But law-abiding, tax-paying, church-going people - the sort of people who make our communities safe and strong - these kind of people are branded as "extremists" for persecution and terror by federal agents. Why? Because we express concern for the growth of federal power; because we express alarm for its total disregard for the rule of law; because we dare to question its usurpation of reserved States' Rights - which in reality are WE THE PEOPLE's rights. Because we watch with amazement as everything we hold sacred is profaned and our way of life destroyed by a greedy, grasping federal power. If we are cut down in the streets like dogs, the federal power will take no notice; but it will bring the whole panapoly of federal arms in defense of all that is immoral and wrong.

It is folly to suppose that the federal power can be reformed; it is folly to embrace the delusive phantom of hope. There is NO QUESTION but that our total subjugation is in view and in store. We either steel our resolve to die fighting for our freedom against the federal government or resolve to live in slavery and socialism.

Are we neuters and castrates? Have we no manly courage? Is there nothing sacred? Is there no outrage that will move us? We seem to be paralysed with passivity. Has soft living deprived us of the moral courage and the manly vigor that caused the founding fathers to pledge their lives, their fortunes and sacred honor to preseve liberty? Did we fight a tryant across the sea to now cringe beneath the lash of a federal master?

"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Thanks Mr. Campbell, for you’re replies.
Some of those thoughts that you have supplied, very useful.
I hope you will have a very relaxing, and fun filled vacation.

This Republic of ours is about to face an unprecedented avalanche of new federal mandates which will decimate our health care system as we know it.

We must without further delay encourage our State legislators to problematically address these congressional usurpations as they materialize.

Though many of the points made in this thread have brought me to consider that even these actions will be clemently insufficient, nothing could be more damaging to any declaration of State rights, and the rights of our people, respectively.

Then those that would otherwise be produced, by those who were, when needed, found to be missing in action themselves.

Thanks Mr. Campbell, for you’re replies.
Some of those thoughts that you have supplied, very useful.
I hope you will have a very relaxing, and fun filled vacation.

This Republic of ours is about to face an unprecedented avalanche of new federal mandates which will decimate our health care system as we know it.

We must without further delay encourage our State legislators to problematically address these congressional usurpations as they materialize.

Though many of the points made in this thread have brought me to consider that even these actions will be clemently insufficient, nothing could be more damaging to any declaration of State rights, and the rights of our people, respectively.

Then those that would otherwise be produced, by those who were, when needed, found to be missing in action themselves.

Attn. Baraka Atkins. See June,3rd, 12:57 reply to " Coerced States of America" post. Hope it answers your question. Great website. Great people. Great discussions. Thank you all for your valued contributions. Will have to say goodbye. Vacation time. What's that,be gone already? OK.

Attn: JMB, Govt. asserts sovereignty over General Motors and all other legal fictions of law persons. Courts can pierce the corporate veil of corporations thus legally impair contracts when questions of fraud,criminality,bankruptcy,or matters like misapplication of govt. funding are involved. Context of govts. can't impair the obligation of contracts pertains to State seeking to be a party to a federal contract between Federal govt. and Federal person/employer/employee. Its tantamount to comandeering. Correct...reply was to Hannibal Barca. Reply was posted late thus out of continuity. As to we the people being recognized as citizens of the Federal Govt., Yes, by every 14th Ammendment document we've applied for or retained. Put another way,its all the documents we possess,where any part of one's name is in all capital letters,such document evidences equity contract. Equity contract/jurisprudence stacks on top of common law. When Supreme court can't reach an answer in equity it turns to common law. Point being, common law is still in full force and effect. We've all just been taught or led to self contract out of it and all original unalienable rights. Think of it as a seperation process engineered by govt.to create taxpayers. Apologies for not clarifying. State governments can't impair Federal contracts. General Motors is effectively connected to interstate commerce thus subject to Federal scope and purview. What States could do is contact all employers in the state to stop being Federal employers. Employers still are oligated to furnish w-4 to employees,but there is no law requiring they be filled out and signed.
States can get employers to contract with State thus providing a State withholding document in lieau of w-4. Federal govt. could argue that it diverts funds owed it by federal citizens,but States could expose the fact that everyone's a federal citizen without knowledge or true consent. Greatest fear Federal govt. has is a mass exodus, of all American born, out of the 14th Ammendment documentation/contracts. That exposes a two tiered citizenship. Their are two United States operating in law simultaneously[see Hooven & Allison vs. Evatt]. Thus one can be citizen of one without being the federal citizen of the other. Behooves one to understand this should all State remedies fail.

Marshell,

I too live in Idaho, and do agree with your post. I am assisting Dick Harwood Dist 2 Rep. to craft a similar bill as the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act" for Idaho. Can not say when this will be accomplished, but we as citizens of Idaho have to take an active part. I see a trend by more states to "stop the feds at the border". It may not be a perfect strategy but I believe it is the best we got at this time. This is a desperate fight to return to our Constitutional roots, and the best weapon I see is the States
united in a 10th Amendment fight.

The way the paper money racket works is like this:

The Constitution authorizes the federal government to emit “bills of credit,” but withholds this power to the States. “Bills of credit” are paper notes that promise “to pay the bear on demand” a certain sum of gold or silver coin. During the civil war, the federal government floated interest free treasury notes that promised to pay the bearer at some indefinite point in the future. This was money issued debt free directly by the federal government, by-passing the greedy bankers. No interest on the national debt was incurred. Uncle Sam promised to redeem the notes, but did not say when. People could accept them if they wanted, or reject them.

Later, the federal government wanted to make the notes a “legal tender.” A “legal tender” means that the creditor MUST accept them, or the debt will be extinguished. For example, if I contract with you to pay 100 ounces of gold for your building me a factory, if I tender payment in watermelons, you can reject it. I have not made a “legal” tender. A legal tender is one that meets the terms of the contract. An essential principle of contract law is that a creditor or promisee cannot reject a legal tender, and if he does the debt will be satisfied.

The effect of the federal government’s making treasury notes a legal tender was that all creditors had to accept them at penalty of their debt being extinguished as a matter of law. Thus, a contract to pay in gold or silver could suddenly be paid with treasury notes (paper) with no certainty they would ever be redeemed. Quite the boon for debtors! Imagine being able to pay off you mortgage by mailing your lender a roll of toilet paper!

Naturally, this was challenged in court as a “taking without due process.” The U.S. Supreme Court first ruled it unconstitutional. Then, through a court packing scheme and the opening up of a seat or two through the death of other sitting justices, the very next session the case was overturned! Now, suddenly the federal government had power to annul private contracts by making worthless, irredeemable paper a legal tender. (See the Legal Tender Cases.) With this precedent in place, it was only a matter of time before the “promise to pay the bearer on demand” disappeared from our money altogether. Further, by getting legislation in place giving the power of the U.S. Treasury to a private central bank (The Federal Reserve) all limit on the power of the federal government to spend, spend, spend was removed.

Now, instead of taxing us to get money, the federal government just borrows paper notes into circulation. Because they are a legal tender, people must accept them. Now, by flooding the economy with paper the relative value is reduced proportionately the more that is put in circulation. This is a principle of supply and demand, sort of like watering down the milk. Government no longer has to come to us through taxation to get real money (gold or silver) to run itself, it just prints, prints, prints away. And the banksters collect interest on the whole thing when if the Treasury was issuing the note there would be no interest at all!

This allows government to engage in out of control growth and out of control spending. There are no limits to what it can do...that is, until they flood the economy with so much money that it loses all value totally. That is were we are today. The dollar is doomed to crash and all of us with it.

Only by a Constitutional Amendment specifically prohibiting the power to declare money a legal tender and promising the people the right to coin and circulate money of their own can accountability be kept in place and an honest money system be preserved.

And the size and power of government will be restrained and freedom ring!

The way the paper money racket works is like this:

The Constitution authorizes the federal government to emit “bills of credit,” but withholds this power to the States. “Bills of credit” are paper notes that promise “to pay the bear on demand” a certain sum of gold or silver coin. During the civil war, the federal government floated interest free treasury notes that promised to pay the bearer at some indefinite point in the future. This was money issued debt free directly by the federal government, by-passing the greedy bankers. No interest on the national debt was incurred. Uncle Sam promised to redeem the notes, but did not say when. People could accept them if they wanted, or reject them.

Later, the federal government wanted to make the notes a “legal tender.” A “legal tender” means that the creditor MUST accept them, or the debt will be extinguished. For example, if I contract with you to pay 100 ounces of gold for your building me a factory, if I tender payment in watermelons, you can reject it. I have not made a “legal” tender. A legal tender is one that meets the terms of the contract. An essential principle of contract law is that a creditor or promisee cannot reject a legal tender, and if he does the debt will be satisfied.

The effect of the federal government’s making treasury notes a legal tender was that all creditors had to accept them at penalty of their debt being extinguished as a matter of law. Thus, a contract to pay in gold or silver could suddenly be paid with treasury notes (paper) with no certainty they would ever be redeemed. Quite the boon for debtors! Imagine being able to pay off you mortgage by mailing your lender a roll of toilet paper!

Naturally, this was challenged in court as a “taking without due process.” The U.S. Supreme Court first ruled it unconstitutional. Then, through a court packing scheme and the opening up of a seat or two through the death of other sitting justices, the very next session the case was overturned! Now, suddenly the federal government had power to annul private contracts by making worthless, irredeemable paper a legal tender. (See the Legal Tender Cases.) With this precedent in place, it was only a matter of time before the “promise to pay the bearer on demand” disappeared from our money altogether. Further, by getting legislation in place giving the power of the U.S. Treasury to a private central bank (The Federal Reserve) all limit on the power of the federal government to spend, spend, spend was removed.

Now, instead of taxing us to get money, the federal government just borrows paper notes into circulation. Because they are a legal tender, people must accept them. Now, by flooding the economy with paper the relative value is reduced proportionately the more that is put in circulation. This is a principle of supply and demand, sort of like watering down the milk. Government no longer has to come to us through taxation to get real money (gold or silver) to run itself, it just prints, prints, prints away. And the banksters collect interest on the whole thing when if the Treasury was issuing the note there would be no interest at all!

This allows government to engage in out of control growth and out of control spending. There are no limits to what it can do...that is, until they flood the economy with so much money that it loses all value totally. That is were we are today. The dollar is doomed to crash and all of us with it.

Only by a Constitutional Amendment specifically prohibiting the power to declare money a legal tender and promising the people the right to coin and circulate money of their own can accountability be kept in place and an honest money system be preserved.

And the size and power of government will be restrained and freedom ring!

I agree with you. A Constitutional convention is necessary however terrifying that might be. The federal government is an insane, feckless monster with no sense of restraint. We need to confront our state legislators to demand a convention and designate delegates. The federal government is the very perversion that the founding fathers struggled to shackle and restrain when forging the Constitution. Apparently, as phenomenal a document as the Constitution is, it does not go far enough in providing a bulwark against daily and increasing federal intrusions on our lives, our liberty, and our happiness.

We must finish the job and pound the federal government back down to its constitutionally mandated size and authority.

I am sick of the Federal Government's feckless spending policies, their specious platitudes that are continuously being spouted by one inept, bumbling clown or another up on Capital Hill; I am sick of their thinly veiled attempts at consolidating their power at the expense of our freedom.

Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining.

The states must have 3/4 majority to ratify any proposed changes in convention so that gives me a measure of hope that the convention wouldn't be easily hijacked and subverted to perpetuate this sad mockery of freedom that we are living. We have little choice, a crisis is coming whether we want it or not. We live in radical times when the circumstances are of the most exigent kind, and it will require an unusual ferocity and an unwavering commitment our founding fathers singularly brilliant vision in order to reverse our course to certain ruin.

With that said, I direct all of you to this article by Randy Barnett who has a specific document for proposing amendments that constitutes a bill of federalism designed to this very thing. If anything else it is food for thought.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/20/bill-of-federalism-constitution-states-supreme-court-opinions-contributors-randy-barnett_2.html

I want to encourage all TEA Partiers not to waste time focusing on issues like repealing the 16th Amendment or income tax. These things aren’t going to happen. And even if they did, they would not make significant change. Even without the income tax, the federal government is taxing us indirectly through depreciation of the dollar and “print and spend” Keynesian economics. And it is this that is ruining the country.

Commodity money (gold/silver) is the only true money and since government cannot create wealth, to get real money government must levy taxes, which there is a definite limit political realities will allow. Witness California. The voters refused to be taxed more and because California cannot print money, it was forced to cut back on the size and expense of govenrment. The same is true of Washington: Shut down the printing presses and government will be returned to WE THE PEOPLE. However, once money is divorced from gold or silver, the government can do ANYTHING it wants by borrowing monetized debt into circulation. This is what has been happening in the US for decades under the Federal Reserve System, and it is this, not the income tax, that has brought our nation to the brink of ruin.

If we want to get our nation on sound financial and monetary basis, we must abolish the Federal Reserve and reinstitute a gold or silver standard, as called for by the Constitution.

“No State shall coin money, emit Bills of Credit [paper money], make nay thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts” Art. I, Sec. 9.

The federal government can emit bills of credit (sometimes a necessary evil in times on war when money and credit are tight), but to make paper money a “legal tender” unbacked by gold or silver it has no legal authority to do. Moreover, since the Federal Reserve is a consortium of private banks and not part of the government, it violates the Constitution which gives Congress alone power to “coin money and regulate the value thereof.” (Notice that “money” is ultimately coin - gold & silver coin, not irredeemable paper.)

One useful thing we can all do to help this process along is to ask our Congressman to be a co-sponsor of Ron Paul’s HR 1207 to audit the Federal Reserve. There are 186 co-sponsors right now from both parties. There will never be another opportunity like now to make a fundamental change in our system. Please ask your congressman to co-sponsor HR 1207.

Next, we should realize that Washington is almost certainly beyond reform. The fix is in at the top for presidential campaigns. No true conservative who is serious about restoring Constitutional government to America will ever get near the White House. The last presidential campaign was a perfect example. Out of the available candidates, not one (except Ron Paul) even talked about restoring the Constitution. Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney, McCain are all establishment, politicians who would only have continued “business as usual” in Washington: More government, more print & spend fiat money, more loss of reserved States’ Rights.

Moreover, the idea that a Republican Congress can save us is pretty wishful thinking. Most republican candidates don’t have a clue about economics or the printing press money. Most Republican candidates are little better than “soft” Democrats, “moderates” who would compromise principle to broaden their appeal and win control. In short, more George Bush Sr.’s and George Bush Jr.’s who together have destroyed the Republican Party and delivered the White House to a radical socialist (who does not even appear to be a Natural Born citizen of the U.S. or at least is resisting all attempts to see his long form birth certificate which alone can settle the question) - a radical socialist, we say, who only the day before yesterday declared June “Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender Pride Month.” Thanks George!

No. We must demand a Constitutional Convention called by the States to propose Amendments. A Constitutional Convention cannot enact Amendments, it can only propose them. Any Amendment to the Constitution - whether proposed by Congress or by the States in a Convention - can ONLY be ratified by 3/4 of the State Legislatures. Hence there is no danger from a Convention. Just the opposite: certain ruin lies ahead if we do nothing.

We need Amendments radically down-sizing Washington DC and returning our Constitutional form of government back to the ORIGINAL INTENT of the founders, rather than the perverted thing 100-years of bad case law and federal usurpation have straddled us with. Anything less than this and we are just fooling ourselves and wasting our time.

If this doesn’t work, I believe our only remaining option is to work for State Secession from the Union. We simply have no interest in Washington’s agenda, its “new world order”, its print & spend economics, its anti-Christian policies, its abortion on demand, its “gay pride”, its trillion-dollar world empire, or its impending economic ruin and collapse.

States like Texas and others need to break away and gain their independence - for our CHILDREN’S SAKE - for it is they who will suffer most if we continue with “business as usual.”

God’s blessings,

I want to encourage all TEA Partiers not to waste time focusing on issues like repealing the 16th Amendment or income tax. These things aren’t going to happen. And even if they did, they would not make significant change. Even without the income tax, the federal government is taxing us indirectly through depreciation of the dollar and “print and spend” Keynesian economics. And it is this that is ruining the country.

Commodity money (gold/silver) is the only true money and since government cannot create wealth, to get real money government must levy taxes, which there is a definite limit political realities will allow. Witness California. The voters refused to be taxed more and because California cannot print money, it was forced to cut back on the size and expense of govenrment. The same is true of Washington: Shut down the printing presses and government will be returned to WE THE PEOPLE. However, once money is divorced from gold or silver, the government can do ANYTHING it wants by borrowing monetized debt into circulation. This is what has been happening in the US for decades under the Federal Reserve System, and it is this, not the income tax, that has brought our nation to the brink of ruin.

If we want to get our nation on sound financial and monetary basis, we must abolish the Federal Reserve and reinstitute a gold or silver standard, as called for by the Constitution.

“No State shall coin money, emit Bills of Credit [paper money], make nay thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts” Art. I, Sec. 9.

The federal government can emit bills of credit (sometimes a necessary evil in times on war when money and credit are tight), but to make paper money a “legal tender” unbacked by gold or silver it has no legal authority to do. Moreover, since the Federal Reserve is a consortium of private banks and not part of the government, it violates the Constitution which gives Congress alone power to “coin money and regulate the value thereof.” (Notice that “money” is ultimately coin - gold & silver coin, not irredeemable paper.)

One useful thing we can all do to help this process along is to ask our Congressman to be a co-sponsor of Ron Paul’s HR 1207 to audit the Federal Reserve. There are 186 co-sponsors right now from both parties. There will never be another opportunity like now to make a fundamental change in our system. Please ask your congressman to co-sponsor HR 1207.

Next, we should realize that Washington is almost certainly beyond reform. The fix is in at the top for presidential campaigns. No true conservative who is serious about restoring Constitutional government to America will ever get near the White House. The last presidential campaign was a perfect example. Out of the available candidates, not one (except Ron Paul) even talked about restoring the Constitution. Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney, McCain are all establishment, politicians who would only have continued “business as usual” in Washington: More government, more print & spend fiat money, more loss of reserved States’ Rights.

Moreover, the idea that a Republican Congress can save us is pretty wishful thinking. Most republican candidates don’t have a clue about economics or the printing press money. Most Republican candidates are little better than “soft” Democrats, “moderates” who would compromise principle to broaden their appeal and win control. In short, more George Bush Sr.’s and George Bush Jr.’s who together have destroyed the Republican Party and delivered the White House to a radical socialist (who does not even appear to be a Natural Born citizen of the U.S. or at least is resisting all attempts to see his long form birth certificate which alone can settle the question) - a radical socialist, we say, who only the day before yesterday declared June “Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender Pride Month.” Thanks George!

No. We must demand a Constitutional Convention called by the States to propose Amendments. A Constitutional Convention cannot enact Amendments, it can only propose them. Any Amendment to the Constitution - whether proposed by Congress or by the States in a Convention - can ONLY be ratified by 3/4 of the State Legislatures. Hence there is no danger from a Convention. Just the opposite: certain ruin lies ahead if we do nothing.

We need Amendments radically down-sizing Washington DC and returning our Constitutional form of government back to the ORIGINAL INTENT of the founders, rather than the perverted thing 100-years of bad case law and federal usurpation have straddled us with. Anything less than this and we are just fooling ourselves and wasting our time.

If this doesn’t work, I believe our only remaining option is to work for State Secession from the Union. We simply have no interest in Washington’s agenda, its “new world order”, its print & spend economics, its anti-Christian policies, its abortion on demand, its “gay pride”, its trillion-dollar world empire, or its impending economic ruin and collapse.

States like Texas and others need to break away and gain their independence - for our CHILDREN’S SAKE - for it is they who will suffer most if we continue with “business as usual.”

God’s blessings,

"No. It won’t fly. The fed regulation is on the employer, not the state. The fed can impose all kinds of hoop-jumping via regulations, be it environmental, employment, and whatever."

Yes, but I am proposing that the state forcefully insert itself as the referee. The states should should have some authority of oversight when the federal government tells businesses (that engage in commerce within the confines of its own well defined state borders) how to collect federal money.

"No. It won’t fly. The fed regulation is on the employer, not the state. The fed can impose all kinds of hoop-jumping via regulations, be it environmental, employment, and whatever."

Yes, but I am proposing that the state forcefully insert itself as the referee. The states should should have some authority of oversight when the federal government tells businesses (that engage in commerce within the confines of its own well defined state borders) how to collect federal money.

The federal president said the other day that his government is out of money, and yet he is encouraging congress to spend more money.

Where are those resolutions that should be demanding specifically, that this federal government restrain from making even more plans to spend even more money they do not have.

Stmfreak nailed it on the head. The responsibility of the individual is paramount and choices both good and bad have consequences. I get more Libertarian every day just for that little fact alone.

stmfreak, very well-said. That is exactly why I wrote my article. I just did not want to argue about the obvious. Of course, just like the GOP went "socialist-lite," the same could happen to the Libertarian Party if it came to a dominant power. Therefore, I will always be looking behind my back, so to speak. Still, what L stands for, I do, too.

A lot of confusion about libertarianism (L) in these comments. As someone who closely aligns with L, I feel compelled to respond.

L is not about atheism or anti-religion. We're just passionate about keeping the government out of your belief structure and practices. Someone said that L wants to prevent parents from teaching their kids about god, that's silly. L wants to leave child raising to the parents. Each parent should do what feels best to them and there should be no regulations regarding what they teach their children.

Pro-Abortion? No, L is clearly pro-choice. If you are pro-life, then Libertarians have your back and support your choice to keep your baby. If you just cannot bear to carry to term, then Libertarians support your choice to terminate. It's up to you. You have to live with the consequences either way, no one should force either decision upon someone else.

Pro-Drug? No. While L is clearly in support of legalizing drugs and can successfully argue that it would eliminated the black market, gangs and much violence in America, I don't think L takes a position on whether or not people should USE drugs. That's clearly an individual choice, full of consequences because unlike the Demo/Repub/Socialistic monoculture political parties we pretend to have in the USA L would advocate removing social support for people addicted to drugs. People who cannot hold down a job will get hungry. People who can no longer persuade family and friends to put up with their addictions will be out in the cold. Necessity will provide the greatest motive for these people to rehabilitate or die.

Of course, L would not prevent any privately funded charities from supporting their local addicts either, so if that seems too harsh for you, feel free to help them out. But L would prohibit the government to steal (taxes) from one group of people to support another.

Sorry for the length, but Libertarianism is rarely aligned with a particular position or choice, except that you should always have a right to make your own. It seems that whenever someone has a highly polar position on a subject and argues with a Libertarian, they tend to ascribe the Libertarian view to the opposite pole. We're not polar, we're divided, balanced, diametrically opposed and free to be that way.

The growth of our Federal Government is a direct result of trying to be all things to all people. And no matter where you look, there is a vocal minority screaming that something else should be done to prevent someone from doing something. This has been going on for at least a hundred years and leads exactly _here_.

At some point, we have to change this system or it's going to continue to get worse. Much worse.

Libertarians want to roll it back to personal choices and personal consequences. It's much simpler, saner and free.

No. It won't fly. The fed regulation is on the employer, not the state. The fed can impose all kinds of hoop-jumping via regulations, be it environmental, employment, and whatever.

I believe one of the buzzwords in the opinion was "commandeer," where the court held the fed could not commandeer to state government to carry out its programs.

Okay. You could be on to an idea. There is a US SCt case a few years ago which held that the Feds could not use the states to force them to administer fed gun background check laws. Hope that helps...

I'd like to talk about this a little more.

Since the Federal government makes employers collect withholding without any compensation for being a federal withholding agent, what happens if a State legislates a law that requires that the Federal government pay all employers the cost of maintaining books and records and acting as Federal withholding agent? The state could set the compensation rate; At a rate of 90% of what is withheld.

Moreover, the state law should require that employers re-distribute the revenue back to the employees from which it came. All 90% of the withholding back to the person from whom it was originally confiscated.