It’s the “interstate commerce clause” and it applies to everything.Details
Our Founding Fathers spoke often of the sovereignty of the several states and of the restraint on unchecked growth that they were meant to be on the federal authority.Details
by Doug Tjaden, Sound Money Center
NOTE: Doug Tjaden will be a featured speaker at Nullify Now! Jacksonville. Get tickets here – http://www.nullifynow.com/jacksonville/ – or by calling 888-71-TICKETS
Over the past several years, our debt-backed fiat Federal Reserve Notes have been on a steady march toward the same end every other fiat system has met â€“ the currency graveyard.Â Consequently, the argument to use gold and silver as constitutional tender has occasionally broken into the news cycle.Â Each time however, the mainstream media quickly shouted it down, using their favorite zombie phrases (a tip of the hat to Dr. Thomas Woods). â€œBarbarous relic!â€ â€œEconomic dinosaurs!â€ And my personal favorite, â€œBags of gold and silver coins!â€
Unfortunately, the public bought the rhetoric, and thus the idea that one can actually use constitutional tender in the 21 century was lost in the 24 hour news cycle.Â For those who understand where we are in the fiat death cycle, this has been frustrating to say the least.
However, today Europe is threatening to implode and the United States is hurling headlong into the second dip of the â€œgreat recession.â€Â This has brought the issue of sound money back into the marketplace of ideas.Â Will it get lost in the media noise of the already contentious 2012 Presidential race?Â I donâ€™t think so.Â In fact, I believe it will be a major subject in next summerâ€™s debates.Details
In an Aug. 25 Washington Times article titled Rebellion by states could be hazardous to health care overhaul, Wake Forest law professor Mark Hall once again illustrates why we shouldnâ€™t call on lawyers to tell us anything about the Constitution, even though they like to wave their hands in the air screaming, â€œI know, I know!â€ Lawyers may know a lot about â€œlawâ€ – as in the string of court precedents handed down over time, but they typically know precious little about constitutional history, political philosophy or the ratification debates, and their asinine comments on constitutional principles usually reveal their ignorance and their reliance on false premises.
When asked about state efforts to nullify the federal health care act, he calls them a â€œbad ideaâ€ and â€œpolitical moves.â€
â€œThe Constitution couldnâ€™t be clearer that the federal law is the supreme law of the land. The only question is whether the federal law is valid.â€
In the meantime, Hall thinks the states should sit down, shut up and let the courts decide.
Which begs the question â€“ who made the federal courts king?
Answer – the federal courts did. Which seems a little fox guarding the henhouseish, doesnâ€™t it?Details