TAC Daily Digest

Tennessee Bill Would Create Mechanism to Facilitate Gold and Silver Reserves

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 22 Jan 2025 04:53:41 +0000

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (Jan. 21, 2025) – A bill filed in the Tennessee Senate would create a mechanism for the purchase and sale of state gold and silver reserves. The proposed law would potentially strengthen Tennessee’s financial stability, insulate against inflation, and reduce reliance on the Federal Reserve’s fiat currency system.

In 2023, the Tennessee legislature authorized the state treasurer to “purchase and sell gold or precious metal bullion or specie that will be directly owned by the state.” Filed by Sen. Paul Baily, Senate Bill 168 (SB168) would create a restricted account to facilitate the purchase and sale of gold and silver specie or bullion under this law.

This restricted account, set up within the existing “reserve for revenue fluctuations” account in the general fund, would receive an initial transfer “of not less than one percent (1%), but no more than three percent (3%), of the total funds” in the reserve for revenue fluctuations account to be allocated for the purchase of precious metal bullion or specie.

“On an annual basis thereafter, the restricted account must be valued based on the total funds in the reserve for revenue fluctuations account that may result in additional transfers from the reserve account to the restricted account.”

Language in the proposed law stipulates that “notwithstanding the state treasurer’s discretionary investment authority…the state treasurer, with the approval of the comptroller of the treasury, shall purchase and sell precious metal bullion or specie that will be directly owned by the state, and in the custody of the state treasurer.”

SB168 would create additional rules directing the process of selling gold and silver reserves.

IMPACT

Holding funds in gold and silver would protect the state’s cash reserves from the ravages of inflation caused by the rapidly depreciating value of Federal Reserve notes. Since 2020, the purchasing power of the dollar has dropped by nearly 20 percent. In that same period, the price of both gold and silver skyrocketed, reflecting the devaluation of the dollar.

Adding gold and silver in reserve could also create a pathway for Tennessee to maintain financial independence should the U.S. dollar collapse, a very real possibility as the world moves away from the greenback as its reserve currency.

In fact, central banks around the world have been buying gold to limit their dependence on the U.S. dollar. According to the World Gold Council (WGC), central banks’ net gold purchases totaled 1,037 tons in 2023. It was the second straight year central banks around the world added more than 1,000 tons to their total reserves. According to the WGC, there are two main drivers behind central bank gold buying — its performance during times of crisis and its role as a long-term store of value.

It’s hardly surprising then that in a year scarred by geopolitical uncertainty and rampant inflation, central banks opted to continue adding gold to their coffers and at an accelerated pace.”

These factors are as relevant to Tennessee as they are to any country.

BACKGROUND

The United States Constitution states in Article I, Section 10, “No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Currently, all debts and taxes in most states are either paid with Federal Reserve Notes (dollars) which were authorized as legal tender by Congress, or with coins issued by the U.S. Treasury – very few of which have gold or silver in them.

The Federal Reserve destroys this constitutional monetary system by creating a monopoly based on its fiat paper currency. Without the backing of gold or silver, the central bank can easily create money out of thin air.
This not only devalues your purchasing power over time; it also allows the federal government to borrow and spend far beyond what would be possible in a sound money system. Without the Fed, the U.S. government wouldn’t be able to maintain all of its unconstitutional wars and programs. The Federal Reserve is the engine that drives the most powerful government in the history of the world.

State bills that facilitate and encourage the use of sound money create a playing field where people can push back against the Fed’s monetary malfeasance. Ultimately, it could create a scenario where people can drive out the “bad” fiat money with “good” sound money.

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

WHAT’S NEXT

SB168 will be referred to a committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative session.

The post Tennessee Bill Would Create Mechanism to Facilitate Gold and Silver Reserves first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Defend the Guard Act: Kansas Legislation Would End Unconstitutional Deployments

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 22 Jan 2025 04:46:45 +0000

TOPEKA, Kan. (Jan. 21, 2025) – A bill filed in the Kansas Senate would prohibit the state’s National Guard from being deployed into “active duty combat” unless Congress issues a declaration of war or calls the Guard into service for one of three constitutionally-authorized purposes.

The Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee introduced Senate Bill 38 (SB38). The Kansas Defend the Guard Act would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the Kansas National Guard into “active duty combat” unless Congress passes an “official declaration of war” as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, or if Congress takes “an official action pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution of the United States.”

“Active duty combat” is defined as performing the following services in the active federal military service of the United States:

Participation in an armed conflict.
Performance of a hazardous service relating to an armed conflict in a foreign state.
Performance of a duty through an instrumentality of war

IN EFFECT

Guard troops have played significant roles in all modern overseas conflicts. Since 9/11 National Guard members have supported more than 1.1 million overseas deployments. Military.com reports that “Guard and Reserve units made up about 45 percent of the total force sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, and received about 18.4 percent of the casualties.”

More specifically, Kansas National Guard troops have participated in missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and other countries.

MILITIA CLAUSES

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 make up the “militia clauses” of the Constitution. Clause 16 authorizes Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.”

Through the Dick Act of 1903, Congress organized a portion of the militia into today’s National Guard, limiting the part of the militia that could be called into federal service rather than the “entire body of people,” which makes up the totality of the “militia.” Thus, today’s National Guard is governed by the “militia clauses” of the Constitution, and this view is confirmed by the National Guard itself.

Clause 15 delegates to Congress the power to provide for “calling forth the militia” in three situations only: 1) to execute the laws of the union, 2) to suppress insurrections, and 3) to repel invasions.

During state ratifying conventions, proponents of the Constitution, including James Madison and Edmund Randolph, repeatedly assured the people that this power to call forth the militia into federal service would be limited to those very specific situations, and not for general purposes.

For instance, during the Virginia ratifying convention, Madison asserted, “Congress ought to have the power to establish a uniform discipline throughout the states, and to provide for the execution of the laws, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions: these are the only cases wherein they can interfere with the militia.” [Emphasis added]

DECLARE WAR

The founding generation was careful to ensure the president wouldn’t have unilateral power to drag the United States into war. Instead, that power was delegated exclusively to the representatives of the people and the states – in Congress. James Madison made this clear in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

“The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.”

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution delegates the power to “declare war” to Congress.

At the time the Constitution was ratified, the power to “declare” war was widely understood to mean changing the state of things from peace to war.

Most people today think that the term “war” in the Constitution only means an all-out war with another country. In their view, more limited military operations that fall short of total war don’t need congressional authorization. But as Constitutional scholar Rob Natelson noted, the founders didn’t make this distinction.

“Founding-Era dictionaries and other sources, both legal and lay, tell us that when the Constitution was approved, ‘war’ consisted of any hostilities initiated by a sovereign over opposition. A very typical dictionary definition was, ‘the exercise of violence under sovereign command against such as oppose.’” (Barlow, 1772-73). [Emphasis added]

When placed within the definition, all offensive U.S. military actions qualify as “violence under sovereign command.” Furthermore, military operations, whether for strategic, political, or humanitarian purposes, are always “over opposition.”

It’s also important to note a country can change the state of things from peace to war with a formal declaration, but it can also happen with the execution of military actions, however limited.

Simply put, any offensive measure requires congressional authorization, not just full-scale wars.

This is exactly how the Constitution was understood – and followed – by the first four presidents – Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.

Justice Joseph Story affirmed this limited role of the state militia in Martin v. Mott (1827).

“The power thus confided by Congress to the President is doubtless, of a very high and delicate nature. A free people are naturally jealous of the exercise of military power, and the power to call the militia into actual service is certainly felt to be one of no ordinary magnitude. But it is not a power which can be executed without a correspondent responsibility. It is, in its terms, a limited power, confined to cases of actual invasion or of imminent danger of invasion.”

DUTY

Congress has abrogated its responsibility and allowed the president to exercise almost complete discretion when it comes to war. Passage of the Defend the Act legislation would ban the state from helping Congress and the executive violate their duties to uphold the Constitution.

West Virginia Rep. Pat McGeehan served as an Air Force intelligence officer in Afghanistan and has sponsored similar legislation in his state.

“For decades, the power of war has long been abused by this supreme executive, and unfortunately our men and women in uniform have been sent off into harm’s way over and over,” he said. “If the U.S. Congress is unwilling to reclaim its constitutional obligation, then the states themselves must act to correct the erosion of constitutional law.”

Defend the Guard legislation has gained increasing traction each year. In 2024, the New Hampshire House, the Arizona Senate, and the Idaho Senate all passed Defend the Guard bills. None were signed as law.

While getting this bill over the finish line won’t be easy, and will face fierce opposition from the establishment, it certainly is, as Daniel Webster once noted, “one of the reasons state governments even exist.”

Webster made this observation in an 1814 speech on the floor of Congress where he urged actions similar to the Kansas Defend the Guard Act. He said, “The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist.”

WHAT’S NEXT

The Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee must hold a hearing on SB38 and pass it by a majority vote before it can move forward in the legislative process.

The post Defend the Guard Act: Kansas Legislation Would End Unconstitutional Deployments first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Arizona Bill Would Exclude CBDC From the State Definition of Legal Tender and Money

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 22 Jan 2025 04:34:23 +0000

PHOENIX, Ariz. (Jan. 21, 2025) – A bill filed in the Arizona Senate would expressly exclude a central bank digital currency (CBDC) from the definition of money and legal tender in the state, creating potentially significant roadblocks to its use as such in the state.

Sen. Jake Hoffman and Rep. Rachel Jones introduced Senate Bill 1095 (SB1095). The legislation would ban the use of CBDC as “legal tender” in the state:

“Federally recognized central bank digital currency may not be used as legal tender or be the subject or medium of payment of any contract, security or other similar instrument in this state.”

It would also amend the Arizona Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Currently, “money” is defined as “a medium of exchange authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government,” and includes “a monetary unit established by intergovernmental organizations or agreements between countries.” SB1095 would add language to clarify that money “does not include a federally recognized central bank digital currency.”

Arizona is not alone in excluding CBDC from the definition of money in the UCC. Similar legislation has already been signed as law in Indiana, Florida, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah.

IN PRACTICE

While it remains unclear exactly how it would play out, removing a CBDC from the definition of money and declaring it is not legal tender would throw up roadblocks if the federal government and its central bank try to implement one.

The UCC is a set of uniformly adopted state laws governing commercial transactions in the U.S. According to the Uniform Law Commission, “Because the UCC has been universally adopted, businesses can enter into contracts with confidence that the terms will be enforced in the same way by the courts of every American jurisdiction. The resulting certainty of business relationships allows businesses to grow and the American economy to thrive. For this reason, the UCC has been called ‘the backbone of American commerce.’”

Passage of this bill would, as noted by one opponent of the legislation, put a CBDC “into the bucket of ‘general intangibles’” – rather than money, and wouldn’t ban its use completely.

But it could still potentially gum up the works and make it difficult for the government to fully implement a CBDC.

Opponents of the strategy and supporters of CBDCs generally take the position that states can’t do anything to stop a CBDC, since – according to their view – under the supremacy clause “any federal law on this point will automatically override state law.”

We’ve heard this song and dance on other issues before. That’s what they said before California legalized medical marijuana in 1996. It didn’t quite turn out that way.

“Roadblock” is likely how this and other state-based strategies to oppose a CBDC will play out. This is part of James Madison’s four-step blueprint for how states and individuals can stop federal programs. Madison said “a refusal to cooperate with officers of the union” along with “the embarrassments created by legislative devices,” would “oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised.”

But whether these roadblocks will have any impact or not requires more than just mere state legislation. As can be seen so far with issues, whether a federal program is implemented or not ultimately gets down to the willingness of the people to participate, or not.

CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCIES (CBDC)

The difference between a central bank (government) digital currency and peer-to-peer electronic cash such as bitcoin is that the value of the former is created, backed, and controlled by the government, just like traditional fiat currency.

In fact, a CBDC is nothing more than the digital offspring of paper fiat money with all the negative characteristics that come with it.

At the root of the move toward government-run digital currency is “the war on cash.” The elimination of cash creates the potential for the government to track every transaction you make. Officials could even “turn off” an individual’s ability to make purchases.

Economist Thorsten Polleit outlined the potential for Big Brother-like government control with the advent of a digital euro in an article published by the Mises Wire. As he put it, “the path to becoming a surveillance state regime will accelerate considerably” if and when a digital currency is issued.

In 2022, the Federal Reserve released a “discussion paper” examining the pros and cons of a potential US central bank digital dollar. According to the central bank’s website, there has been no decision on implementing a CBDC, but this pilot program reveals the idea is further along than most people realized.

While President Trump has promised not to implement a CBDC, it’s important to remember he won’t hold office forever and we can’t count on the goodwill of politicians to protect our liberty. States need to take steps against a CBDC now instead of scrambling if things move forward in the future.

As Thomas Jefferson advised, “It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered.”

WHAT’S NEXT

SB1095 was referred to the Senate Finance Committee. It’s currently scheduled for a hearing and likely vote on Jan 27 @ 2:00 pm

The post Arizona Bill Would Exclude CBDC From the State Definition of Legal Tender and Money first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

North Dakota Bill Would Make Gold and Silver Legal Tender; End Taxes on Both

Mike Maharrey — Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:04:55 +0000

BISMARCK, N.D. (Jan. 20, 2025) – A bill filed in the North Dakota House would make gold and silver legal tender in the state and repeal all taxes on its exchange. The legislation would also explicitly exclude central bank digital currency (CBDC) from the definition of money under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).

Rep. Nathan Toman along with seven cosponsors filed House Bill 1441 (HB1441). Under the proposed law, “specie legal tender,” defined as “gold or silver specie issued by the United States or any other form of gold or silver specie,” would be legal tender in North Dakota.

In effect, under the law, gold and silver would be considered a valid medium of exchange for the payment of debts in the state.

The passage of HB1441 would make North Dakota the sixth state to recognize gold and silver as legal tender, as they always should have been doing. Utah led the way, reestablishing constitutional money in 2011. Wyoming, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana have since joined.

IN PRACTICE

Practically speaking, this would allow North Dakota residents to use gold or silver as money rather than as mere investment vehicles.

Passage of HB1441 would represent a big first step against the fiat-based Federal Reserve system by creating a foundation to pull the rug out from under it on the state and local levels. In essence, it would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

The next step would be for people to start taking advantage of the status of gold and silver as money by using both as such instead of Federal Reserve notes.

The effect has been most dramatic in Utah where the Specie Legal Tender Act opened the door for the development of a robust gold and silver economy in the state. With some legal hurdles cleared away by the state’s legal tender law, the United Precious Metal Association (UPMA) in partnership with Alpine Gold Exchange set up the state’s first “gold bank.”

The Act has also led to the creation of the Goldback, a local, voluntary medium of exchange. Goldbacks are notes made from fractions of an ounce of physical gold. The company created a process that turns pure gold into a spendable physical form for small transactions.

REMOVING TAXES

HB1441 declares, “The exchange, purchase, or sale of any type or form of specie legal tender may not give rise to any tax liability of any kind.”

This would effectively end the capital gains tax on gold and silver specie. This would take an important step toward treating gold and silver as money instead of commodities. Taxes on precious metal bullion erect barriers to using gold and silver as money by raising transaction costs.

Imagine if the IRS sent you a bill every time the dollar strengthened against the euro. That’s effectively what capital gains taxes on gold and silver do. As the precious metals prices go up due to the devaluation of the dollar, the government levies a tax on you. It is essentially a tax on the superior performance of gold and silver as money.

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

BACKGROUND

This not only devalues your purchasing power over time; it also allows the federal government to borrow and spend far beyond what would be possible in a sound money system. Without the Fed, the U.S. government wouldn’t be able to maintain all of its unconstitutional wars and programs. The Federal Reserve is the engine that drives the most powerful government in the history of the world.

State laws that facilitate and encourage the use of sound money create a playing field where people can push back against the Fed’s monetary malfeasance. Ultimately, it could create a scenario where people can drive out the “bad” fiat money with “good” sound money.

CBDCs

HB1441 explicitly declares central bank digital currency “not legal tender,” and it would also exclude CBDC from the definition of money in the state Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).

Under the North Dakota UCC, “money” is defined as “a medium of exchange authorized or adopted by the United States or foreign government. The term includes a monetary unit of account established by an intergovernmental organization or by agreement between two or more governments. ” HB1441 would add language to clarify that “‘Money’ does not include a central bank digital currency.”

IN PRACTICE

While it remains unclear exactly how it would play out, removing a CBDC from the definition of money would throw up roadblocks if the federal government and its central bank try to implement one.

Passage of this bill would, as noted by one opponent of the legislation, put a CBDC “into the bucket of ‘general intangibles’” – rather than money, and wouldn’t ban its use completely.

But it could still potentially gum up the works and make it difficult for the government to fully implement a CBDC.

We’ve heard this song and dance on other issues before. That’s what they said before California legalized medical marijuana in 1996. It didn’t quite turn out that way.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB1441 was referred to the House Industry, Business and Labor Committee. There will be a hearing on Jan. 22 at 2:30 p.m. in room 327C.

The post North Dakota Bill Would Make Gold and Silver Legal Tender; End Taxes on Both first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Hawaii Bills Would Require a Criminal Conviction Before Asset Forfeiture and Restrict Federal Loophole

Mike Maharrey — Mon, 20 Jan 2025 22:52:53 +0000

HONOLULU, Hawaii (Jan. 20, 2025) – Lawmakers in Hawaii have introduced two bills aimed at reforming the state’s civil asset forfeiture laws, requiring a criminal conviction before property can be seized, and taking significant steps to close a federal loophole that allows law enforcement to bypass state restrictions.

Sen. Joy San Buenaventura and four cosponsors filed Senate Bill 320 (SB320). Sen. Karl Rhoads and nine cosponsors filed Senate Bill 722 (SB722). The legislation would limit civil asset forfeiture “to cases involving the commission of a felony offense where the property owner has been convicted of an underlying felony offense.”

SB320 and SB722 would also address the “policing for profit” motive inherent in civil asset forfeiture by requiring the state treasurer to deposit forfeiture proceeds into the general fund. Under current law, 25 percent of forfeiture funds go to police agencies, 25 percent to prosecuting attorneys, and 50 percent go to the attorney general.

FEDERAL LOOPHOLE

SB320 and SB722 would take significant steps toward closing a federal loophole that allows state and local law enforcement to bypass Hawaii’s stricter asset forfeiture laws through a federal program known as “Equitable Sharing.”

This program enables law enforcement to transfer cases to federal authorities via a process called “adoption,” allowing prosecutors to sidestep state limits and seize property under federal law.

Under these arrangements, state or local police investigate a case on their own and then simply hand it over to a federal agency for prosecution. Even though the feds initially didn’t participate in the investigation, they handle the prosecution under federal law – and then give up to 80 percent of the take to the state law enforcement agency that helped them out.

This allows state and local police to cash in on asset forfeiture even if state law prohibits it.

Adoption accounts for about 30 percent of equitable sharing cases and about 15 percent of the total value forfeited under equitable sharing. The rest, and the vast majority, happens through state-federal joint task forces.

Language in SB320 and SB722 would significantly close the loophole.

“A seizing agency or prosecuting attorney shall not enter into an agreement to transfer or refer property seized under section 712A-6, unless the seized property includes United States currency in excess of $100,000, to a federal agency directly, indirectly, through adoption, through an intergovernmental joint task force or by other means that circumvent the provisions of this section.”

It’s difficult to say exactly how many cases would be eligible for transfer with that $100,000 cash threshold because only 21 states report forfeiture data. But based on analysis by the Institute for Justice, the vast majority of cases fall below that amount.

The median currency forfeiture averages just $1,276 across the 21 states with available data. Minnesota has the most transparent reporting. According to an IJ lawyer, only seven of the 3,873 cases reported in 2023 included proceeds above $50K.

NECESSARY

While some people believe the Supreme Court “ended” asset forfeiture, its opinion in Timbs v. Indiana ended nothing. The court merely held that the Eighth Amendment provisions prohibiting “expressive fines” apply to the state through the incorporation doctrine.

Without further action, state and federal law enforcement can still use the civil asset forfeiture process with few limits. Additionally, as law professor Ilya Somin noted, the Court left an important issue unresolved. What exactly counts as “excessive” in the civil forfeiture context?

“That is likely to be a hotly contested issue in the lower federal courts over the next few years. The ultimate effect of today’s decision depends in large part on how that question is resolved. If courts rule that only a few unusually extreme cases qualify as excessive, the impact of Timbs might be relatively marginal.”

Somin has been proved correct. Six years later, the SCOTUS decision still hasn’t limited asset forfeiture.

The passage of legislation that specifically limits or completely ends state participation in equitable sharing takes concrete steps toward ending it instead of waiting for more court cases.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB320 and SB722 will be assigned to a committee where they must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Hawaii Bills Would Require a Criminal Conviction Before Asset Forfeiture and Restrict Federal Loophole first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Defend the Guard Act: Arizona Legislation Would End Unconstitutional Deployments

Mike Maharrey — Mon, 20 Jan 2025 22:41:43 +0000

PHOENIX, Ariz. (Jan. 20, 2025) – A bill filed in the Arizona House would prohibit the state’s National Guard from being deployed into “active duty combat” unless Congress issues a declaration of war or calls the Guard into service for one of three constitutionally-authorized purposes. The legislation would also allow deployment if explicitly authorized by the state legislature.

Rep. Alexander Kolodin and seven cosponsors filed the Arizona Defend the Guard Act as House Bill 2188 (HB2188). The legislation would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the Arizona National Guard into “active duty combat” unless Congress passed an “official declaration of war” as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, or if Congress takes “an official action pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the United States Constitution.”

“Active duty combat” is defined as performing the following services in the active federal military service:

Participating in an armed conflict.
Performance of a hazardous service in a foreign state.
Performance of a duty through an instrumentality of war

The legislation would also authorize deployment of the state’s National Guard Troops if the state legislature “provides specific authorization by concurrent resolution.”

A similar bill has passed the Arizona Senate the last two years, but it has yet to clear the state House.

IN EFFECT

More specifically, Arizona National Guard troops have participated in missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries.

MILITIA CLAUSES

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 make up the “militia clauses” of the Constitution. Clause 16 authorizes Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.”

DECLARE WAR

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution delegates the power to “declare war” to Congress.

At the time the Constitution was ratified, the power to “declare” war was widely understood to mean changing the state of things from peace to war.

It’s also important to note a country can change the state of things from peace to war with a formal declaration, but it can also happen with the execution of military actions, however limited.

Simply put, any offensive measure requires congressional authorization, not just full-scale wars.

This is exactly how the Constitution was understood – and followed – by the first four presidents – Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.

Justice Joseph Story affirmed this limited role of the state militia in Martin v. Mott (1827).

DUTY

West Virginia Rep. Pat McGeehan served as an Air Force intelligence officer in Afghanistan and has sponsored similar legislation in his state.

Webster made this observation in an 1814 speech on the floor of Congress where he urged actions similar to the Arizona Defend the Guard Act. He said, “The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist.”

WHAT’S NEXT

HB2188 will be referred to a House committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Defend the Guard Act: Arizona Legislation Would End Unconstitutional Deployments first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Conspiracy: Luther Martin’s Anti-Federalist Warnings about Centralization

Michael Boldin — Fri, 17 Jan 2025 20:06:23 +0000

Luther Martin, the Anti-Federalist firebrand, predicted that the Constitution would lead to a national system of consolidated power that could never secure liberty. He argued this was an intentional conspiracy – a deliberate plan at the Philadelphia Convention to undermine federalism and state sovereignty. In this episode, we’ll uncover Martin’s fiery objections, his claims of a calculated scheme, his warnings about consolidation, standing armies, and more.

Path to Liberty: January 17, 2025

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Maharrey – Luther Martin’s Warning: The Constitution as a Threat to State Sovereignty

Genuine Information (29 Nov 1787)

Montesquieu – The Spirit of Laws

Episode – Alexander Hamilton’s Craziest Plan

MORE VIDEO SOURCES
Watch on Rumble

FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:

Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest

The post Conspiracy: Luther Martin’s Anti-Federalist Warnings about Centralization first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

2nd Amendment Preservation: Kentucky Bill Would Ban State Enforcement of All Federal Gun Control

Mike Maharrey — Fri, 17 Jan 2025 18:21:42 +0000

FRANKFORT, Ky. (Jan. 17, 2025) – A newly filed Kentucky House bill would expand current state law to prohibit state and local enforcement of any federal gun control measures enacted after December 15, 1791, the day the Second Amendment was ratified, drawing a bold line in defense of the right to keep and bear arms.

In 2023, the state enacted a law prohibiting Kentucky law enforcement agencies, local governments, and public agencies from “adopting a rule, order, ordinance, or policy under which the entity enforces, assists in the enforcement of, or otherwise cooperates in a “federal ban” on firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessory enacted on or before Jan. 1, 2021.” It also prohibits the expenditure of public funds for the same.

Rep. T.J. Roberts and Rep. Felicia Rabourn filed House Bill 82 (HB82) to expand the current ban on state enforcement of a “federal ban” on firearms and ammunition to include any law, rule, or regulation effective after Dec. 15, 1791, the day the Second Amendment was ratified.

State law defined a “federal ban” as “a federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation … that infringes upon, calls into question, prohibits, restricts, or requires individual licensure for or registration of the purchase, ownership, possession, transfer, or use of any firearm, ammunition, or firearm accessories.”

State or local government agents who violate the law are subject to termination and misdemeanor criminal charges.

A person commits an offense under this section when, while acting in his or her official capacity under color of law, he or she knowingly violates this section. An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor for the first offense and a Class A misdemeanor for each subsequent offense.

“I believe the ATF is evil and that Kentucky should never comply with federal gun control, so I introduced House Bill 82 to protect all peaceful people’s rights to keep and bear arms,” Roberts said in a post on X.

IMPACT

Withdrawing state support would significantly hinder the enforcement of federal gun control in Kentucky.

The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations, and acts – including gun control. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”

By simply withdrawing this cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in practice and effect.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.

“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” Tenth Amendment Center director Michael Boldin said. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”

LEGAL BASIS

Under the Constitution, the state can legally bar state and local agents from enforcing federal gun control. As Roberts noted, “The Supreme Court, before I was born, made clear that the federal government cannot force states to use their resources to aid federal gun control measures.”

Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support, and leadership from state and local governments.

This strategy of using a “refusal to cooperate” with federal enforcement has been reaffirmed under the long-standing and well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.

This legal concept dates back to the earliest days of the republic. As the third Chief Justice, Oliver Ellsworth put it, “This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity.”

Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or regulatory program.

The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five major Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.

“The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.”

WHAT’S NEXT

HB82 is currently in the House Committee on Committees. This committee must assign the bill to a House standing committee for further consideration.

The post 2nd Amendment Preservation: Kentucky Bill Would Ban State Enforcement of All Federal Gun Control first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

New York Bill Would Abolish Qualified Immunity

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 22:11:20 +0000

ALBANY, N.Y. (Jan. 15, 2025) – A bill filed in the New York Assembly seeks to abolish the doctrine of qualified immunity, paving the way for lawsuits against government officials, including law enforcement officers, in state court for rights violations.

Assm. Phillip Steck and three cosponsors filed Assembly Bill 1003 (A1003). Under the proposed law, an individual subjected to “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities” secured by the New York state constitution and the laws of the state could sue the offending public authorities for equitable relief in state court. The legislation would exclude “qualified immunity” as a defense in such suits:

“The doctrine of qualified immunity is hereby abolished and shall not be asserted as a defense to any action arising under this section, unless specifically set forth in this section.”

ANOTHER PATH

Typically, people sue police and other government officials for using excessive force or other types of misconduct in the federal court system under the U.S. Bill of Rights. But federal courts created a qualified immunity defense out of thin air, making it nearly impossible to hold law enforcement officers responsible for actions taken in the line of duty.

The Supreme Court and Congress show no interest in rolling back the qualified immunity doctrine. The best path forward is to bypass the federal system.

In effect, the passage of A1003 would do so by creating an alternative path to address violations of rights in state court with no qualified immunity hurdle to clear.

Similar laws have been passed in Colorado and New Mexico, and California closed some of the qualified immunity loopholes in its state law.

THE PROCESS

It remains unclear how the process created by A1003 would play out.

The first question is whether people will utilize the state courts instead of the federal court system. Under the original constitutional system, such questions would have never been a federal issue to begin with. Regulation of police powers was reserved to the states, not the federal government.

But with the advent of the incorporation doctrine, people reflexively run to federal courts. Removing the federally created qualified immunity hurdle incentivizes people to take advantage of the state system.

The second question is if police officers will be able to transfer cases to federal jurisdiction to take advantage of qualified immunity.

A1003 potentially makes it less likely because it only invokes the state constitution.

However, even if the suit is focused on state law and the New York constitution, state and local law enforcement officers working on joint state/federal task forces would almost certainly be able to move the case to federal court. They are effectively treated as federal agents.

One attorney told the Tenth Amendment Center that it might be possible for officers to have their case removed to federal court to consider U.S. constitutional ramifications. But he said even then, he thinks federal courts would have to respect the state law prohibiting qualified immunity as a defense. The federal court would likely have to apply the state law as the state intended, even though the federal court might well be able to decide whether or not a U.S. constitutional violation had taken place.

Other lawyers said it wasn’t clear to them that the federal courts would have to honor the state statute. It is possible that the federal court could simply decide its jurisdiction supersedes state law and hear the case under the federal process, including the application of qualified immunity. Only time will tell how the process will play out in practice. Regardless, the state process will make it more difficult for police to simply side-step civil suits by declaring qualified immunity upfront.

WHAT’S NEXT

A1003 was referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, where it will need to pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post New York Bill Would Abolish Qualified Immunity first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Federal Robbery: Asset Forfeiture Program Helps States Steal

Michael Boldin — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 20:09:51 +0000

Civil asset forfeiture is theft. Despite the fact that a growing number of states are limiting or even ending this practice, there’s a massive loophole. A federal program called “equitable sharing” not only allows state and local law enforcement to bypass these restrictions but actively encourages it. In this episode, learn what it is and what states can do to bring it to an end.

Path to Liberty: January 15, 2025

ghgfggb

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Maharrey – The Federal Loophole That Fuels Asset Forfeiture Nationwide

IJ – Ending Civil Forfeiture

IJ – Policing for Profit – Introduction

Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984

DOJ – FY2023 Equitable Sharing Payment of Cash and Sales Proceeds by Recipient Agency by State

IJ – How States Have Shrunk the Loophole

New York A1437 Report

Colorado HB1067 Report

Lysander Spooner – No Treason No VI

MORE VIDEO SOURCES
Watch on Rumble

FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:

Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest

The post Federal Robbery: Asset Forfeiture Program Helps States Steal first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Virginia Bill Would Extend Sales Tax Exemption on Gold and Silver

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 19:31:29 +0000

RICHMOND, Va. (Jan. 15, 2025) – A bill filed in the Virginia House seeks to extend the state’s existing sales tax exemption on gold and silver for an additional seven years. By preserving this exemption, the measure reinforces efforts to treat gold and silver as money rather than just investment assets.

Del. Amanda Batten filed House Bill 2336 (HB2336). The Virginia legislature exempted the sale of gold, silver, and platinum bullion or legal tender coins over $1,000 from sales tax in 2018. effective until 2022. That year, the legislature extended the sunset date to 2025 and removed the $1,000 threshold. HB2336 would extend the exemption until June 30, 2032.

Sound Money Defense League Director Jp Cortez warned, “If this measure fails, and this exemption is therefore allowed to expire, Virginia citizens seeking to protect their savings against the devaluation of the dollar would be immediately harmed – not to mention an entire industry of small precious metals dealers that would be worse off.”

IMPACT

Taxes on precious metal bullion erect barriers to using gold and silver as money by raising transaction costs.

Imagine if you asked a grocery clerk to break a $5 bill and he charged you a 35-cent tax. Silly, right? After all, you were only exchanging one form of money for another. But that’s essentially what a sales tax on gold and silver bullion does. By eliminating this tax on the exchange of gold and silver, Virginia treats gold and silver specie more like money. This supports the use of gold and silver in transactions and breaks down the Fed’s monopoly on money.

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

BACKGROUND

WHAT’S NEXT

A committee referral for HB2336 is next. Once it gets an assignment, it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Virginia Bill Would Extend Sales Tax Exemption on Gold and Silver first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Arkansas Bill Would Exclude CBDC From the State Definition of Money

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 19:21:20 +0000

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (Jan. 15, 2025) – A bill filed in the Arkansas Senate would expressly exclude a central bank digital currency (CBDC) from the definition of money under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), creating potentially significant roadblocks to its use as such in the state.

Senate Bill 47 (SB47), filed by Senator Justin Boyd and three cosponsors, seeks to amend the Arkansas UCC. Currently, “money” is defined as “a medium of exchange authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government, including monetary units established by intergovernmental organizations or agreements between countries.” SB47 adds language to clarify that “‘Money’ does not include a central bank digital currency.”

The bill also proposes to exclude CBDCs from the definition of a “deposit account” under the UCC, further limiting their recognition and use within the state’s legal framework.

Arkansas is not alone in pursuing this approach. Similar legislation has already been signed as law in Indiana, Florida, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah.

IN PRACTICE

While it remains unclear exactly how it would play out, removing a CBDC from the definition of money would throw up roadblocks if the federal government and its central bank try to implement one.

Passage of this bill would, as noted by one opponent of the legislation, put a CBDC “into the bucket of ‘general intangibles’” – rather than money, and wouldn’t ban its use completely.

But it could still potentially gum up the works and make it difficult for the government to fully implement a CBDC.

We’ve heard this song and dance on other issues before. That’s what they said before California legalized medical marijuana in 1996. It didn’t quite turn out that way.

CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCIES (CBDC)

In fact, a CBDC is nothing more than the digital offspring of paper fiat money with all the negative characteristics that come with it.

As Thomas Jefferson advised, “It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered.”

WHAT’S NEXT

SB47 was referred to the Senate Insurance and Commerce Committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Arkansas Bill Would Exclude CBDC From the State Definition of Money first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Arizona Bill Targets EPA Overreach, Asserts State Sovereignty

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 04:27:13 +0000

PHOENIX, Ariz. (Jan. 14, 2025) – Legislation introduced in the Arizona House could strike a blow to federal overreach by halting state and local enforcement of certain EPA rules and regulations.

Rep. Lisa Fink and two cosponsors filed House Bill 2059 (HB2059). The proposed law would ban the state, all of its political subdivisions, and their employees from “knowingly and willingly participating in any way in the enforcement of any federal act, law, order, rule or regulation that relates to coal, oil, gas, timber or other extractive resources” if it isn’t mirrored in state law.

It would also prohibit the use of state or local assets and money for the enforcement of the same.

HB2059 also addresses long-standing agency rule-making under the Chevron Doctrine, as it stipulates that in any proceedings to enforce compliance with the specified federal laws and EPA regulations, “the court shall decide all questions of law and questions of fact…without deference to any previous determination that may have been made on the question by a federal agency.”

Any state employee or agent found to have violated the proposed law would be subject to a $3,000 civil penalty on the first offense. Political subdivisions or state agencies in violation of the law would lose state funding.

EFFECTIVE

The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations, and acts – including EPA rules and regulations. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”

Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down EPA rules and regulations because most enforcement actions rely on help, support, and leadership from state and local governments.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion relating to federal gun control, he noted that a single state taking similar steps would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.

LEGAL BASIS

The provisions prohibiting the state from enforcing EPA rules and regulations rest on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program – whether constitutional or not. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.

“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

No determination of constitutionality is necessary to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not. A state could refuse to provide personnel or resources to the federal government just because it is Tuesday and it’s snowing.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB2059 was referred to the House Natural Resources, Energy and Water Committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Arizona Bill Targets EPA Overreach, Asserts State Sovereignty first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

New Hampshire Action Alert: Defend the Guard Act Hearing and Vote

TAC News — Tue, 14 Jan 2025 23:48:38 +0000

The New Hampshire Defend the Guard Act is scheduled for an executive session vote in committee on Friday, Jan. 24. Your action in support is crucial to help the bill forward.

BACKGROUND

House Bill 104 would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the New Hampshire National Guard into “active duty combat” unless Congress “has passed an official declaration of war,” or “taken an official action pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the United States Constitution.”

You can read more details about the legislation HERE.

HEARING AND YOUR ACTION

The State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing on HB104 on Friday, Jan. 17. It will now hold an “executive session” on the bill – where it comes up for a vote – on Jan 24 at 2:00 pm in Legislative Office Building 206-208.

To help the bill move forward in the legislative process, residents of New Hampshire can contact all the members of the committee individually – and urge them to support HB104

Phone calls are by far the most effective, but emails are provided below where a direct phone number is not available.

When contacting committee members, make sure to let them know you live in NH, you support HB104, and want them to vote in favor of Ought to Pass (OTP) when the bill comes up for an executive session vote in the committee.

Be firm, but courteous and professional to have the highest impact.

Chairman: Michael Moffett – 603.491.0553
Vice Chairman: Skip Rollins – 603.504.8501
David Lundgren – 603.432.3499
John Leavitt – John.Leavitt@leg.state.nh.us
Larry Gagne – lgagne25@comcast.net
Tom Mannion – Tom.Mannion@leg.state.nh.us
Mike Belcher – Mike.Belcher@leg.state.nh.us
Cindy Bennett – 603.493.8265
Wayne Hemingway – 603.477.4407
Raymond Plante – 603.351.0994
Christine Seibert – 603.892.2685
Jean Jeudy – 603.645.5290
Christal Lloyd – Christal.Lloyd@leg.state.nh.us
Philip Jones – 603.499.8648
Suraj Budathoki – 603.262.0500
Lily Foss – Lily.Foss@leg.state.nh.us
Sanjeev Manohar – Sanjeev.Manohar@leg.state.nh.us

The post New Hampshire Action Alert: Defend the Guard Act Hearing and Vote first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

New York Bill Seeks to End Civil Asset Forfeiture and Limit Federal Equitable Sharing Participation

Mike Maharrey — Tue, 14 Jan 2025 18:48:08 +0000

ALBANY, N.Y. (Jan. 14, 2025) – A newly filed bill in the New York Assembly seeks to end civil asset forfeiture for most cases and curb participation in the federal equitable sharing program.

Asm. Pamela Hunter and seven cosponsors filed Assembly Bill 1437 (A1437). The legislation would replace the state’s civil asset forfeiture process with a criminal procedure. Under the proposed law, forfeiture could only occur if the “prosecuting authority secures a conviction of a crime that authorizes the forfeiture of property and the prosecuting authority establishes by clear and convincing evidence the property is an instrumentality of or proceeds derived directly from the crime for which the state secured a conviction.”

A1437 would also address the “policing for profit” motive inherent in civil asset forfeiture by requiring the state treasurer to deposit forfeiture proceeds into the general fund after payment of specific allowable expenses. Under current law, police can keep up to 60 percent of forfeiture proceeds in New York.

FEDERAL LOOPHOLE

A1437 would limit a federal loophole that facilitates and encourages state and local law enforcement agencies to partner with the feds, doing an end-run around more stringent state limits on forfeiture.

A federal civil asset forfeiture program known as “Equitable Sharing” allows prosecutors to bypass a more restrictive state forfeiture process by passing cases off to the federal government through a process known as “adoption.”

This allows state and local police to cash in on asset forfeiture even if state law prohibits it.

The following provisions in A1437 would limit adoption in New York.

“A law enforcement agency shall not offer for adoption any property seized under state law, to a federal agency for the purpose of forfeiture under the federal Controlled Substances Act, or other federal law unless such seized property includes United States currency that exceeds twenty thousand dollars.”

The proposed law also addresses equitable sharing through state-federal joint task forces. These generally account for about 85 percent of federal forfeiture cases.

Under A1437, forfeiture proceedings for property seized by joint task forces would have to be prosecuted in state courts unless the seizure includes currency over $20,000. State and local law enforcement agencies would be prohibited from receiving equitable sharing funds if the federal government requires federal prosecution in cases involving less than $20,000 in currency.

It’s difficult to say exactly how many cases would be eligible for transfer with that $20,000 threshold because only 21 states report forfeiture data. But based on analysis by the Institute for Justice, the vast majority of cases fall below that amount.

NECESSARY

“That is likely to be a hotly contested issue in the lower federal courts over the next few years. The ultimate effect of today’s decision depends in large part on how that question is resolved. If courts rule that only a few unusually extreme cases qualify as excessive, the impact of Timbs might be relatively marginal.”

Somin has been proved correct. Six years later, the SCOTUS decision still hasn’t limited asset forfeiture.

The passage of legislation that specifically limits or completely ends state participation in equitable sharing takes concrete steps toward ending it instead of waiting for more court cases.

WHAT’S NEXT

A1437 was referred to the Assembly Codes Committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post New York Bill Seeks to End Civil Asset Forfeiture and Limit Federal Equitable Sharing Participation first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Alaska Bill Would Make Gold and Silver Legal Tender; End Sales Taxes on Both

Mike Maharrey — Tue, 14 Jan 2025 17:30:05 +0000

JUNEAU, Alaska (Jan 14, 2025) – A bill filed in the Alaska House would officially recognize gold and silver as legal tender and repeal local sales taxes on both. Passage into law would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

Rep. Kevin McCabe filled House Bill 1 (HB1). Under the proposed law “specie,” defined as “gold or silver valued primarily based on its metal content and in the form of coin or bullion,” would be recognized as legal tender. In effect, gold and silver would be considered a valid medium of exchange for the payment of debts in the state.

Specie legal tender would include coins or bullion:

Recognized by the U.S. government as legal tender
Recognized by a foreign government as legal tender
Recognized by a court of competent jurisdiction, by final and unappealable order, to be within state authority to designate as legal tender.

By allowing the court to designate additional specie to be used as legal tender, Alaska could free its citizens from potential supply constraints imposed by the use of only United States-minted gold and silver coins. More importantly, the people of the state of Alaska would be able to define what specie is considered constitutional tender, further distancing themselves from potential control of their competing currency by Washington D.C.

The passage of HB1 would make Alaska the sixth state to recognize gold and silver as legal tender, as they always should have been doing. Utah led the way, reestablishing constitutional money in 2011. Wyoming, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana have since joined.

IN PRACTICE

Practically speaking, this would allow Alaska residents to use gold or silver in both physical and electronic forms as money rather than as mere investment vehicles.

Passage of HB1 would represent a big first step against the fiat-based Federal Reserve system by creating a foundation to pull the rug out from under it on the state and local levels. In essence, it would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

The next step would be for people to start taking advantage of the status of gold and silver as money by using both as such instead of Federal Reserve notes.

REMOVING TAXES

HB1 would exempt the exchange of specie from a sales or use tax. Alaska does not have a state income or sales tax, but local jurisdictions can levy sales taxes.

Taxes on precious metal bullion erect barriers to using gold and silver as money by raising transaction costs.

Imagine if you asked a grocery clerk to break a $5 bill and he charged you a 35-cent tax. Silly, right? After all, you were only exchanging one form of money for another. But that’s essentially what a sales tax on gold and silver bullion does. By eliminating this tax on the exchange of gold and silver, Alaska would treat gold and silver specie more like money. This would support gold and silver as legal tender and break down the Fed’s monopoly on money.

BACKGROUND

WHAT’S NEXT

HB1 will be referred to a committee when the legislative session begins on Jan. 21.

The post Alaska Bill Would Make Gold and Silver Legal Tender; End Sales Taxes on Both first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Defend the Guard Act: Kentucky Bill Would Block Unconstitutional Deployments

Mike Maharrey — Tue, 14 Jan 2025 04:40:00 +0000

FRANKFORT, Ky. (Jan. 13, 2025) – The Kentucky Defend the Guard Act, filed in the state House for the 2025 legislative session, would require the governor to stop unconstitutional combat deployments of the state’s National Guard troops.

Reps. Candy Massaroni and TJ Roberts, along with three other cosponsors, introduced House Bill 141 (HB141). The legislation would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the Kentucky National Guard into “active duty combat” unless Congress “has passed an official declaration of war,” or “taken an official action pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution of the United States.”

“Active duty combat” is defined as performing the following services “in the active federal military service of the United States”:

Participation in an armed conflict.
Performance of a hazardous service relating to an armed conflict in a foreign state.
Performance of a duty through an instrumentality of war.

IN EFFECT

More specifically, Kentucky National Guard units have participated in missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Africa, and elsewhere.

MILITIA CLAUSES

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 make up the “militia clauses” of the Constitution. Clause 16 authorizes Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.”

DECLARE WAR

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution delegates the power to “declare war” to Congress.

At the time the Constitution was ratified, the power to “declare” war was widely understood to mean changing the state of things from peace to war.

It’s also important to note a country can change the state of things from peace to war with a formal declaration, but it can also happen with the execution of military actions, however limited.

Simply put, any offensive measure requires congressional authorization, not just full-scale wars.

This is exactly how the Constitution was understood – and followed – by the first four presidents – Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.

Justice Joseph Story affirmed this limited role of the state militia in Martin v. Mott (1827).

DUTY

West Virginia State Rep. Pat McGeehan served as an Air Force intelligence officer in Afghanistan and has sponsored similar legislation in his state.

Webster made this observation in an 1814 speech on the floor of Congress where he urged actions similar to the Kentucky Defend the Guard Act. He said, “The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist.”

WHAT’S NEXT

HB141 was referred to the House Committee on Committees. It needs to be assigned to a House standing committee for further consideration.

The post Defend the Guard Act: Kentucky Bill Would Block Unconstitutional Deployments first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

10th Amendment Explained: Tench Coxe on State vs Federal Power

Michael Boldin — Mon, 13 Jan 2025 20:34:04 +0000

“Independent of the control or interference of the federal government.” That’s how Tench Coxe described the vast majority of power under the Constitution – reserved to the states and completely off-limits to the federal government. In this episode, we’re diving into his powerful insights: specific powers reserved to the states and the limits placed on federal power. Living under the largest government in history, this 10th Amendment foundation of the Constitution is more important than ever.

Path to Liberty: January 13, 2025

SHOW LINKS:
Book – The Other Federalist Papers: Tench Coxe

JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Thomas Jefferson – Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bill for Establishing a National Bank (15 Feb 1791)

James Madison – Federalist 45 (26 Jan 1788)

James Wilson – State House Yard Speech (6 Oct 1787)

Edmund Randolph – Virginia Ratifying Convention (10 June 1788)

Alexander Hamilton – New York Ratifying Convention (28 June 1788)

John Williams – New York Ratifying Convention (21 June 1788)

George Mason – Virginia Ratifying Convention (16 June 1788)

Boldin – Bill of Rights: Forgotten Role of the 10th Amendment in Its Creation

Tench Coxe – A Freeman I (23 Jan 1788)

Maharrey – Tench Coxe: Forgotten Federalist who Helped Influence Ratification of the Constitution

Maharrey – Tench Coxe: A Detailed Breakdown of State vs. Federal Powers

Tench Coxe – A Freeman II (30 Jan 1788)

Tench Coxe – A Pennsylvanian IV (27 Feb 1788)

MORE VIDEO SOURCES
Watch on Rumble

FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:

Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest

The post 10th Amendment Explained: Tench Coxe on State vs Federal Power first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Kentucky Bill Would Legalize Raw Milk Sales in the State

Mike Maharrey — Sat, 11 Jan 2025 00:53:42 +0000

FRANKFORT, Ky. (Jan. 10, 2025) – A bill introduced in the Kentucky House would effectively legalize raw milk sales in the state, challenging federal restrictions in the process.

Rep. T.J. Roberts filed House Bill 86 (HB86), which would expressly prohibit local governments in Kentucky from banning the sale of unpasteurized milk through laws or administrative regulations. The bill also clarifies that “the sale of unpasteurized milk to a consumer shall not be prohibited” statewide.

Under current law, the sale of raw milk is prohibited in Kentucky. Unpasteurized goat milk may be sold to individuals who have a note from a doctor.

In effect, the passage of HB86 would allow law milk sales subject to the same type of regulatory scheme as pasteurized milk.

The passage of this legislation into law would allow the development of a raw milk market in Kentucky and also take an important step toward further rejecting a federal prohibition scheme in practice and effect.

THE FDA’S POSITION

FDA officials insist that unpasteurized milk poses a health risk because of its susceptibility to contamination from cow manure, a source of E. coli.

The FDA’s position is more than a matter of opinion. In 1987, the feds banned the interstate sale of raw milk for human consumption with the implementation of 21 CFR 1240.61(a).

The agency insists it “does not regulate the intrastate sale or distribution of raw milk. Whether to permit the sale and distribution of raw milk within a state is for the state to decide.”

However, the FDA has asserted its authority to regulate raw milk sales within the borders of a state. In response to a Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund lawsuit against the FDA over the interstate raw milk ban, officials wrote, “It is within HHS’s authority…to institute an intrastate ban [on unpasteurized milk] as well.”

This means the federal government could become more aggressive in regulating or banning raw milk within states at any time.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION

When states allow the sale of raw milk within their borders, it takes an important step toward nullifying this federal prohibition scheme in practice and effect.

That’s because the federal government lacks the personnel and resources necessary to fully enforce federal food laws, as evidenced by state and local cooperation with federal raids on farms. The FDA has about 18,000 employees, but the Office of Criminal Investigation only has 200 agents to cover the entire U.S.

Imagine a scenario where every state allowed raw milk sales and refused to cooperate with federal enforcement efforts. It’s clear the feds wouldn’t be able to do much of anything about raw milk sales within the borders of a state or even across state lines.

The reality is that when more people engage in the activity the feds are trying to control, it becomes increasingly difficult for the federal government to enforce its will. It’s like a freeway where everybody chooses to drive 80 mph. Police become overwhelmed, and enforcement becomes nearly impossible.

Removing state barriers to raw milk consumption, sale, and production would undoubtedly spur the creation of new markets for unpasteurized dairy products, no matter what the feds claim the power to do.

If all 50 states allow raw milk, markets within the states could easily grow to the point that local sales would render the federal ban on interstate commerce null and void in practice and effect.

Simply put, growing markets will quickly overwhelm any federal enforcement attempts.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB86 was referred to the Committee on Committees where it will be referred to a standing committee for further consideration.

The post Kentucky Bill Would Legalize Raw Milk Sales in the State first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Wyoming Bill Would Require State to Hold Gold and Silver Reserves

Mike Maharrey — Sat, 11 Jan 2025 00:46:34 +0000

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (Jan. 10, 2025) – A bill introduced in the Wyoming Senate would require the state to maintain precious metal reserves, potentially strengthening its financial stability, insulating against inflation, and reducing reliance on the Federal Reserve’s fiat currency system.

Rep. Bill Allemand filed Senate Bill 96 (SF96) with 10 cosponsors. Under the proposed law, the state treasurer would be required to hold not less than $10 million in specie and specie legal tender “between and across all state-managed accounts.” Specie is defined as a “coin having gold or silver content.”

SF96 states that gold and silver reserves would be held “for the purpose of diversifying the state’s investment portfolio, preserving capital and insuring against inflation, debt defaults and other risks.”

The proposed law would also give the state treasurer the authority to invest state funds in “precious metals leases or bonds payable in precious metals,” if warranted by market conditions.

SF96 also includes provisions that would require the treasurer to conduct a study “analyzing the role of precious metals in augmenting, stabilizing and ensuring the economic security and prosperity of the state and the families, residents and businesses of the state.” The study would have to include a review of “methods for the state to begin accepting gold and silver as a payment medium.”

Wyoming is among five states that have legally recognized gold and silver as legal tender, as they always should have been doing. Utah led the way, reestablishing constitutional money in 2011. Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana have since joined.

Utah took a step-by-step approach, similar to the strategy being followed in Wyoming. A combination of at least four state laws, plus plenty of steps forward by businesses and individuals has built what is likely the most robust foundation for the advancement of gold and silver as money in the United States.

IMPACT

Adding gold and silver in reserve could also create a pathway for Wyoming to maintain financial independence should the U.S. dollar collapse, a very real possibility as the world moves away from the greenback as its reserve currency.

It’s hardly surprising then that in a year scarred by geopolitical uncertainty and rampant inflation, central banks opted to continue adding gold to their coffers and at an accelerated pace.”

These factors are as relevant to Wyoming as they are to any country.

Tennessee authorized gold and silver reserves in 2023 and Utah did the same during the last legislative session.

BACKGROUND

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

WHAT’S NEXT

SF96 will be assigned to a committee where it will need to get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative session.

The post Wyoming Bill Would Require State to Hold Gold and Silver Reserves first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Colorado Bill Would End Civil Asset Forfeiture and Restrict Federal Loophole

Mike Maharrey — Sat, 11 Jan 2025 00:26:20 +0000

DENVER, Colo. (Jan. 10, 2025) – A bill introduced in the Colorado House would end civil asset forfeiture in the state and impose significant new restrictions on law enforcement’s ability to bypass state laws through federal forfeiture programs.

Rep. Ken Degraaf and Rep. Mark Baisley filed House Bill 1067 (HB1067). The legislation would replace the state’s civil asset forfeiture process with a criminal procedure. Under the procedure, forfeiture could only occur “when a defendant is convicted of a crime of unlawful distribution, manufacturing, dispensing, or selling a controlled substance.”

HB1067 would also address the “policing for profit” motive inherent in civil asset forfeiture by requiring the state treasurer to deposit forfeiture proceeds into the general fund, the Behavioral Health Administrative Services Organization, and the Law Enforcement Community Services Grant Program after payment of specific allowable expenses. Under current law, law enforcement agencies can keep up to 75 percent of forfeiture proceeds in Colorado.

FEDERAL LOOPHOLE

HB1067 would take significant steps toward closing a federal loophole that allows state and local law enforcement to bypass Colorado’s stricter asset forfeiture laws through a federal program known as “Equitable Sharing.”

This program enables law enforcement to transfer cases to federal authorities via a process called “adoption,” allowing prosecutors to sidestep state limits and seize property under federal law.

This allows state and local police to cash in on asset forfeiture even if state law prohibits it.

Adoption accounts for about 15 percent of equitable sharing cases. The other 85 percent happen through state-federal joint task forces.

A law passed in 2017 prohibits Colorado law enforcement agencies from transferring seized property to a federal agency unless it has a net value of more than $50,000. It also prohibits state and local police from accepting payment or distribution from equitable sharing arising from a joint task force, or other multijurisdictional collaboration, unless the aggregate net equity value of the property and currency seized in the case is in excess of $50,000. This excludes 80 to 85 percent of all forfeitures from transfer to the feds, according to data compiled by the Colorado Municipal League.

Language in HB1067 would further restrict Colorado law enforcement agencies from participating in this federal program. Under the proposed law, police and prosecutors could only transfer cases to the feds through adoption or join task forces if the seizure includes currency in excess of $50,000.

It’s difficult to say exactly how many cases would be eligible for transfer with that $50,000 cash threshold because only 21 states report forfeiture data. But based on analysis by the Institute for Justice, the vast majority of cases fall below that amount.

NECESSARY

“That is likely to be a hotly contested issue in the lower federal courts over the next few years. The ultimate effect of today’s decision depends in large part on how that question is resolved. If courts rule that only a few unusually extreme cases qualify as excessive, the impact of Timbs might be relatively marginal.”

Somin has been proved correct. Six years later, the SCOTUS decision still hasn’t limited asset forfeiture.

The passage of legislation that specifically limits or completely ends state participation in equitable sharing takes concrete steps toward ending it instead of waiting for more court cases.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB1067 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Colorado Bill Would End Civil Asset Forfeiture and Restrict Federal Loophole first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Maryland Bill Would Prohibit No-Knock Warrants

Mike Maharrey — Fri, 10 Jan 2025 20:03:04 +0000

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (Jan. 10, 2024) – A bill introduced in the Maryland House seeks to ban “no-knock” warrants, directly challenging Supreme Court precedents that enable their widespread use. If passed, the law would set a foundation for states to nullify federal standards that have facilitated such raids for decades.

Del. Gabriel Acevero filed House Bill 255 (HB255). Under the proposed law, a search warrant could not “authorize a law enforcement officer executing the warrant to enter a building, an apartment, a premises, or a place to be searched without first announcing the law enforcement officer’s purpose and authority.”

Before executing a search warrant, police would be required to “give notice reasonably calculated to alert any occupants” and allow at least 20 seconds for a response. The proposed law would also require police officers to execute warrants between the hours of 8 a.m. and 7 p.m.

NULLIFYING THE SUPREMES

Without specific state restrictions, police officers typically follow standards established by the Supreme Court. When it comes to no-knock warrants, the SCOTUS has provided police the legal cover they need to use the tactic almost indiscriminately.

However, legislation like HB255 would take a step toward nullifying the Supreme Court opinions that currently provide this legal justification for no-knock raids across the U.S.

In the 1995 case Wilson v. Arkansas, the Court established that police must peacefully knock, announce their presence, and allow time for the occupants to open the door before entering a home to serve a warrant. But the Court allowed for “exigent circumstances” exceptions if police “fear” violence, if they consider the suspect “a flight risk,” or if officers “fear” the suspect will destroy evidence.

As journalist Radley Balko noted, police utilized this exception to the fullest extent, “simply declaring in search warrant affidavits that all drug dealers are a threat to dispose of evidence, flee or assault the officers at the door.”

The SCOTUS eliminated this blanket exception in Richards v. Wisconsin (1997), requiring police to show why a specific individual is a threat to dispose of evidence, commit an act of violence, or flee from police. But even with this opinion, the bar for obtaining a no-knock warrant remains exceptionally low.

“In order to justify a ‘no-knock’ entry, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence.” [Emphasis added]

Reasonable suspicion is an extremely low legal bar to meet. Through this exception, police can justify no-knock entry on any warrant application. In effect, the parameters in the SCOTUS opinion make no-knock the norm instead of the exception.

A third Supreme Court opinion effectively eliminated the consequences for violating the “knock and announce” requirement even without a no-knock warrant. In Hudson v. Michigan (2006), the High Court held that evidence seized in violation of knock and announce was not subject to the exclusionary rule. In other words, police can still use evidence in court even if they technically gather it illegally.

Were it not for the dubious “incorporation doctrine” that purportedly empowers the federal government to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, these cases would have never gone to federal court, and we wouldn’t have these blanket rules providing cover for no-knock raids.

By imposing restrictions on no-knock warrants, states establish standards that exceed Supreme Court limits, nullifying the Court’s opinion in practice and effect.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB255 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Maryland Bill Would Prohibit No-Knock Warrants first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Government is Evil: Timeless Lessons from Thomas Paine’s Common Sense

Michael Boldin — Fri, 10 Jan 2025 19:25:19 +0000

January 10, 1776: Thomas Paine didn’t hold back in Common Sense. Far more than just a call for independence from Britain, it was a bold and uncompromising attack on unlimited, centralized power. In this episode, we explore some of Paine’s top principles from Common Sense – timeless lessons that remain as relevant and important today as they were over two centuries ago during the early stages of the War for Independence.

Path to Liberty: January 10, 2025

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Patrick J. Kiger – History.com

Robert McDonald – Teaching American History

Jason Mandresh – Founder of the Day

Ray Tyler – Teaching American History

Common Sense (full text)

Boldin – Common Sense: A Scathing Attack on Unlimited, Centralized Power

Episode – Mercantilism Before the Tea Party: Forgotten Grievance of the Revolution

MORE VIDEO SOURCES
Watch on Rumble

FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:

Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest

The post Government is Evil: Timeless Lessons from Thomas Paine’s Common Sense first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Raw Milk Market Would be Expanded Under New Missouri Legislative Proposal

TAC News — Tue, 07 Jan 2025 14:17:33 +0000

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Jan. 7, 2025) – A bill filed in the Missouri Senate would expand access to raw milk by allowing online sales along with pickup at farmer’s markets, and through local businesses, challenging federal restrictions in the process.

Sen. Jill Carter filed Senate Bill 395 (SB395). Under the proposed law, a consumer would be able to buy raw milk directly from a producer in person or online and pick it up from “a grocery store, restaurant, soda fountain, or similar establishment that has an agreement with the milk producer to store the milk or cream for purchaser pickup.”

SB395 would also allow raw milk sales at a farmer’s market.

Under current law, raw milk sales are only allowed directly from the producer to the consumer on the farm where it was produced.

The passage of this legislation into law would expand the raw milk market in Missouri and also take an important step toward further rejecting a federal prohibition scheme in practice and effect.

THE FDA’S POSITION

FDA officials insist that unpasteurized milk poses a health risk because of its susceptibility to contamination from cow manure, a source of E. coli.

The FDA’s position is more than a matter of opinion. In 1987, the feds banned the interstate sale of raw milk for human consumption with the implementation of 21 CFR 1240.61(a).

The agency insists it “does not regulate the intrastate sale or distribution of raw milk. Whether to permit the sale and distribution of raw milk within a state is for the state to decide.”

This means the federal government could become more aggressive in regulating or banning raw milk within states at any time.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION

When states allow the sale of raw milk within their borders, it takes an important step toward nullifying this federal prohibition scheme in practice and effect.

If all 50 states allow raw milk, markets within the states could easily grow to the point that local sales would render the federal ban on interstate commerce null and void in practice and effect.

Simply put, growing markets will quickly overwhelm any federal enforcement attempts.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB395 will be referred to a committee after the legislature convenes on Jan. 8.

The post Raw Milk Market Would be Expanded Under New Missouri Legislative Proposal first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Now in Effect: Nebraska Repeals State Capital Gains Taxes on the Sale of Gold and Silver

TAC News — Tue, 07 Jan 2025 11:08:11 +0000

LINCOLN, Neb. (Jan. 7, 2025) – Last week, a law repealing the capital gains tax on the sale of gold and silver went into effect in Nebraska. The new law removes a barrier to using gold and silver as money.

Legislature Bill 1317 (LB1317) went into effect on Jan. 1, 2025. The extensive tax bill includes a provision that repeals state capital gains taxes on the sale of gold and silver bullion, defined as “coins, bars, ingots, notes, leaf, foil, film, or commemorative medallions of gold, silver, platinum, or palladium, or a combination of these, for which the value depends primarily on its content and not the form.”

Under the Nebraska code, taxpayers use federal adjusted gross income as a starting point for state taxes. LB1317 allows taxpayers to reduce their gross income for state purposes by the amount of any capital gains reported to the IRS on the sale of gold and silver. They also able to add capital losses on the sale of the same.

LB1317 passed Nebraska’s unicameral legislature by a 49-0 vote.

“Gold and silver are the only forms of currency mentioned in our Constitution and with that comes the people’s ability to use it as such without penalty from the government,” Sen. Ben Hansen said. “Saving, and using, gold and silver is our right and one of the only checks and balances to our federal government’s unending devaluation of our paper currency. ”

LB1317 also includes a provision that excludes central bank digital currency (CBDC) from the state definition of money under the state tax code. The impact of this change is unclear, but ostensibly, it would prohibit the state from accepting tax payments in the form of CBDC and create a roadblock to its implementation in Nebraska.

IMPACT

Taxes on precious metal bullion erect barriers to using gold and silver as money by raising transaction costs.

Exempting the sale of bullion from capital gains taxes takes an important step toward treating gold and silver as money instead of commodities. Taxes on precious metal bullion erect barriers to using gold and silver as money by raising transaction costs.

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

BACKGROUND

The United States Constitution states in Article I, Section 10, “No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Currently, all debts and taxes in Alabama are either paid with Federal Reserve Notes (dollars) which were authorized as legal tender by Congress, or with coins issued by the U.S. Treasury – very few of which have gold or silver in them.

The post Now in Effect: Nebraska Repeals State Capital Gains Taxes on the Sale of Gold and Silver first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Defend the Guard Act: Oklahoma Legislation Filed to End Unconstitutional Deployments

TAC Daily Updates — Tue, 07 Jan 2025 02:07:25 +0000

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. (Jan. 6, 2025) – The Oklahoma Defend the Guard Act, filed in the state House for the 2025 legislative session, would require the governor to stop unconstitutional combat deployments of the state’s National Guard troops.

Sen. Dusty Deevers filed Senate Bill 188 (SB188). The legislation would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the Oklahoma National Guard into “active duty combat” unless Congress passed an “official declaration of war” as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, or if Congress takes “an official action pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the United States Constitution to explicitly call forth the Oklahoma National Guard .”

“Active duty combat” is defined as performing the following services in the active federal military service of the United States:

Participation in an armed conflict in a foreign state.
Performance of a hazardous service relating to an armed conflict in a foreign state.
Performance of a duty through an instrumentality of war

IN EFFECT

More specifically, Oklahoma National Guard troops have participated in missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Estonia, Chile, and several other countries.

MILITIA CLAUSES

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 make up the “militia clauses” of the Constitution. Clause 16 authorizes Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.”

DECLARE WAR

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution delegates the power to “declare war” to Congress.

At the time the Constitution was ratified, the power to “declare” war was widely understood to mean changing the state of things from peace to war.

It’s also important to note a country can change the state of things from peace to war with a formal declaration, but it can also happen with the execution of military actions, however limited.

Simply put, any offensive measure requires congressional authorization, not just full-scale wars.

This is exactly how the Constitution was understood – and followed – by the first four presidents – Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.

Justice Joseph Story affirmed this limited role of the state militia in Martin v. Mott (1827).

DUTY

West Virginia Rep. Pat McGeehan served as an Air Force intelligence officer in Afghanistan and has sponsored similar legislation in his state.

Webster made this observation in an 1814 speech on the floor of Congress where he urged actions similar to the Oklahoma Defend the Guard Act. He said, “The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist.”

WHAT’S NEXT

SB188 will be referred to a committee when the legislative session begins on Feb. 3.

The post Defend the Guard Act: Oklahoma Legislation Filed to End Unconstitutional Deployments first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

New Law in Effect: Alabama Repeals Capital Gains Taxes on Gold and Silver

Mike Maharrey — Mon, 06 Jan 2025 19:36:27 +0000

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (Jan. 6, 2025) – Last week, a law repealing the capital gains tax on the sale of gold and silver went into effect. The new law removes another barrier and sets the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

Sen. Tim Melson sponsored Senate Bill 297 (SB297). Alabama repealed the state sales tax on gold, silver, platinum, and palladium bullion in 2018 and extended the exemption in 2023. The enactment of SB297 takes another step by effectively repealing the state capital gains tax on the exchange of gold and silver.

Under the new law, individuals selling gold or silver bullion, or utilizing gold and silver in a transaction, can deduct any net capital gain derived from the exchange from their income for state income tax purposes.

The Senate passed SB297 by a vote of 34-0. The House approved the measure 100-1. With Gov. Ivey’s signature, the law went into effect on Jan. 1, 2025.

IMPACT

Taxes on precious metal bullion erect barriers to using gold and silver as money by raising transaction costs.

As mentioned, Alabama is already one of 45 states that do not levy sales tax on gold and silver bullion. Exempting the sale of bullion from capital gains taxes takes another step toward treating gold and silver as money instead of commodities. Taxes on precious metal bullion erect barriers to using gold and silver as money by raising transaction costs.

BACKGROUND

The United States Constitution states in Article I, Section 10, “No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Currently, all debts and taxes in Alabama are either paid with Federal Reserve Notes (dollars) which were authorized as legal tender by Congress, or with coins issued by the U.S. Treasury – very few of which have gold or silver in them.

The post New Law in Effect: Alabama Repeals Capital Gains Taxes on Gold and Silver first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Firearm Purchaser’s Privacy Act Now in Effect in New Hampshire

Mike Maharrey — Mon, 06 Jan 2025 19:34:36 +0000

CONCORD, N.H. (Jan. 6, 2025) – Last week, the New Hampshire Firearm Purchaser’s Privacy Act went into effect. The new law prohibits financial institutions operating in the state from using a credit card merchant code that would enable the tracking of firearm and ammunition purchases.

Rep. Jason Janvrin sponsored House Bill 1186 (HB1186). The new law prohibits a payment card network from requiring any New Hampshire merchant to use a “firearms code” defined as “the merchant category code 5723, approved in September 2022 by the International Organization for Standardization, for firearms retailers.”

The law also bars retailers from using such a code voluntarily.

“For the purposes of the sale of firearms, ammunition for use in firearms, and firearms accessories, a firearms retailer may not provide a firearms code to a payment card issuer or payment card network and may only use or be assigned a merchant category code for general merchandise retailers or sporting goods retailers.”

The legislation includes provisions empowering the state attorney general to enforce the law and impose civil penalties for violations.

The House passed the bill by a vote of 203-174. The Senate approved the measure by a 14-10 vote. Chris Sununu signed the bill into law on July 12, and it went into effect on Jan. 1, 2025.

To date, at least 14 states have banned the use of firearms merchant codes.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS

In response to legislation like HB1186, the major credit card payment networks “paused” implementation of the firearms merchant code in March 2023.

In an email to Reuters, a Mastercard representative said such bills would cause “inconsistency” in how the code could be applied by merchants, banks, and payment networks. The more states that ban such codes, the more likely this program gets scrapped permanently.

In July 2024, Visa and Mastercard told USA Today that they were only using the firearms code in the states that require it by law.

Additionally, data collected from this merchant code would almost certainly end up in federal government databases.

In a nutshell, without the code, the feds can’t gather and compile information on firearms purchases. When the state limits surveillance and data collection, it means less information the feds can tap into. This represents a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.

BACKGROUND

Merchant Category Codes (MCCs) have their roots in the IRS. They were created to classify different types of businesses and to identify the goods and services they sell. This was sold as an improvement for better tax reporting, and is still touted, as CNBC put it, as a tool to help “prevent things ranging from fraud to human trafficking.” But as is so often the case, “it’s for your safety” morphed into “so we can control you.”

In September 2022, the International Standards Organization, based in Switzerland, approved a new merchant category code for firearm and ammunition merchants. Many of the bills passed specifically reference the code “5723.”

In effect, the firearms code is a de facto gun registry.

In the letter to payment card networks, federal lawmakers stated that the new Merchant Category Code for firearms retailers would be “. . .the first step towards facilitating the collection of valuable financial data that could help law enforcement in countering the financing of terrorism efforts,” expressing a clear government expectation that networks will utilize the new Merchant Category Code to conduct mass surveillance of firearms and ammunition purchases in cooperation with law enforcement.

The more states that ban such codes, the more likely this program gets scrapped permanently.

The post Firearm Purchaser’s Privacy Act Now in Effect in New Hampshire first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Most Important Inaugural Address: Forgotten Principles of Jefferson

Michael Boldin — Mon, 06 Jan 2025 19:13:38 +0000

The 10th Amendment, peace, cutting spending and debt, and eliminating taxes – these are just a few of the key principles Thomas Jefferson outlined in his first inaugural address. Easily one of the most important presidential speeches in American history, Jefferson’s inaugural laid out a bold and clear vision: a blueprint for liberty, unity, and strictly limited government under the Constitution. In this video, we’ll dive into the context of Jefferson’s election and address, his unwavering emphasis on peace, and the 13 essential principles of his administration. Over two centuries later, his message remains more vital than ever.

Path to Liberty: January 6, 2025

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Monticello – First Inauguration

National Archives – 1800 Electoral College Results

Hamilton on the Election of 1800

Alexander Hamilton – Letter to Harrison Gray Otis (23 Dec 1800)

Jefferson’s First Inaugural – Full Text (4 Mar 1801)

David Tucker – Preserving the Common Ground of American Citizenship: Jefferson’s First Inaugural

Episode – Nullify: Thomas Jefferson’s Radical Declaration They Want You to Ignore

Episode – Militia vs Standing Army: The Founders’ View

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to Thomas Paine (11 July 1789)

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to Samuel Adams (29 Mar 1801)

Samuel Adams – Letter to Thomas Jefferson (24 Apr 1801)

MORE VIDEO SOURCES
Watch on Rumble

FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:

Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest

The post Most Important Inaugural Address: Forgotten Principles of Jefferson first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Oklahoma Bill Would Expand Gold and Silver as Legal Tender

Mike Maharrey — Mon, 06 Jan 2025 16:51:50 +0000

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. (Jan. 6, 2025) – A bill filed in the Oklahoma Senate would significantly expand the types of gold and silver recognized as legal tender in the state and repeal the state capital gains tax on bullion sales. If passed, it would build on previous steps to reestablish constitutional money, positioning the people of Oklahoma to actively challenging the Federal Reserve’s fiat monopoly.

Sen. Shane Jett filed Senate Bill 284 (SB284). In 2014, Oklahoma took the first step and declared gold and silver coins issued by the United States government are legal tender in the State of Oklahoma. That bill also expanded the sales tax exemption on gold and silver. SB284 would improve and clarify the definition of specie legal tender.

The language in the new definition retains the definition of gold and silver bullion coins issued by the U.S. government as legal tender and explicitly specifies that “legal tender may be used to pay public debt in this state.” In effect, this would require the state to accept gold and silver for payment of taxes, fees, and other obligations.

Oklahoma is among five states that have legally recognized gold and silver as legal tender, as they always should have been doing. Utah led the way, reestablishing constitutional money in 2011. Wyoming, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana have since joined.

Utah took a step-by-step approach, similar to the strategy being followed in Oklahoma. A combination of at least four state laws, plus plenty of steps forward by businesses and individuals has built what is likely the most robust foundation for the advancement of gold and silver as money in the United States.

IN PRACTICE

Practically speaking, recognizing gold and silver as legal tender allows Oklahoma residents to use them as money rather than as mere investment vehicles.

Passage of SB284 would represent another step against the fiat-based Federal Reserve system by creating a foundation to pull the rug out from under it on the state and local levels. In essence, it would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

The next step would be for people to start taking advantage of the status of gold and silver as money by using both as such instead of Federal Reserve notes.

The act also led to the creation of the Goldback, a local, voluntary medium of exchange. Goldbacks are notes made from fractions of an ounce of physical gold. The company created a process that turns pure gold into a spendable physical form for small transactions.

GOLD CONTRACT CLAUSE

SB284 also specifies that “no person shall compel another person or entity to tender or accept specie for the payment of any debt except as agreed to by agreement or contract.”

In practice, including this contract clause means if parties voluntarily agree to be paid, or to pay, in gold and silver coin or bullion, the Oklahoma courts could not substitute any other thing, e.g. Federal Reserve Notes, as payment.

The principle behind a gold clause contract is simple. It requires that payment must be made in a specific amount of gold or its paper equivalent. For example, a mortgage might stipulate that repayment must be in the form of 30 ounces of gold. Gold clauses protect the parties to a contract from currency debasement, and incentivize the use of sound money.

REMOVING TAXES

Under SB284, special legal tender would be exempt from all forms of taxation.

“The purchase, sale, or exchange of any type or form of specie, including legal tender, shall not give rise to any tax liability in this state.”

It would also specifically repeal the state’s capital gains tax on gold and silver bullion.

Taxes on precious metal bullion erect barriers to using gold and silver as money by raising transaction costs.

Oklahoma is already one of 45 states that do not levy sales tax on gold and silver bullion. Exempting the sale of bullion from capital gains taxes takes another step toward treating gold and silver as money instead of commodities. Taxes on precious metal bullion erect barriers to using gold and silver as money by raising transaction costs.

BACKGROUND

The United States Constitution states in Article I, Section 10, “No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Currently, all debts and taxes in Oklahoma are either paid with Federal Reserve Notes (dollars) which were authorized as legal tender by Congress, or with coins issued by the U.S. Treasury – very few of which have gold or silver in them.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB284 will be referred to a committee when the legislative session begins on Feb. 3.

The post Oklahoma Bill Would Expand Gold and Silver as Legal Tender first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Forgotten Dangers of Political Parties: Warnings We’ve Ignored for too Long

Michael Boldin — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 18:53:23 +0000

We’re diving into one of the Founders’ most critical lessons: the dangers of factions and party spirit. To truly understand their warnings, we’ll explore the ideas that inspired them – especially the sharp insights of Thomas Gordon and John Trenchard, authors of Cato’s Letters and Gordon’s Works of Sallust. Their words, written nearly 300 years ago, reveal truths about political division that remain just as relevant today. Some things, it seems, never really change.

Path to Liberty: January 3, 2025

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Cicero – The Works of Sallust

John Trenchard – Cato’s Letters No. 17 (18 Feb 1721)

Wolverton – Trenchard and Gordon: Forgotten Influences on the Founders

Mercy Otis Warren – History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution/Chapter XXXI

John Trenchard – Cato’s Letters No. 80 (9 June 1722)

Samuel Adams – Loyalty and Sedition (1748)

Thomas Gordon – Cato’s Letters No. 16 (11 Feb 1721)

Noah Webster – The Revolution in France (1794)

Thomas Gordon – Cato’s Letters No. 51 (4 Nov 1721)

Thomas Gordon – Cato’s Letters No. 96 (29 Sept 1722)

John Taylor – Tyranny Unmasked

George Washington – Farewell Address 19 Sept 1796

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to Francis Hopkinson (13 Mar 1789)

MORE VIDEO SOURCES
Watch on Rumble

FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:

Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest

The post Forgotten Dangers of Political Parties: Warnings We’ve Ignored for too Long first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Missouri Bill Would Limit Government Use of ALPRs

Mike Maharrey — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 17:39:13 +0000

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Jan. 3, 2025) – A bill filed in the Missouri House would ban government use of fixed automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) and the data they collect and share.

Rep. Jeff Vernetti filed House Bill 658 (HB658). The proposed law would prohibit any state or local government agency from purchasing, installing, or using an ALPR to capture information along streets and highways. It would also bar them from accessing or using any data captured by such a system, including those operated by third parties.

HB658 would allow police to use ALPR systems “affixed to vehicles occupied by a police officer.”

Significantly, provisions in the proposed law prohibiting state and local agencies from “accessing or using” ALPR data would effectively ban law enforcement agencies from contracting with private third-party companies such as Flock Safety.

HB658 would also prohibit red light enforcement cameras.

A COG IN THE SURVEILLANCE STATE

ALPRs are high-speed cameras that can capture every license plate that passes. They can be installed in fixed locations, such as on utility poles and overpasses. ALPR systems can also be made mobile by attaching them to police vehicles.

These systems are capable of recording thousands of license plates every minute and storing the information in massive databases, along with date, time, and location information. Some ALPRs can even capture a photo of the driver of the vehicle.

And as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) notes, ALPRs have a dark side.

“Taken in the aggregate, ALPR data can paint an intimate portrait of a driver’s life and even chill First Amendment-protected activity. ALPR technology can be used to target drivers who visit sensitive places such as health centers, immigration clinics, gun shops, union halls, protests, or centers of religious worship.”

BILLIONS OF SCANS

Records obtained by the EFF through open records requests encompassed information compiled by 200 law enforcement agencies that utilize ALPRs. The data revealed more than 2.5 billion license plate scans in just two years (2016 and 2017). In 2019 alone, 82 agencies in California collected more than 1 billion license plate scans using ALPRs. Yet according to EFF, 99.9 percent of this surveillance data was not actively related to an investigation when it was collected.

Perhaps more concerning, this gigantic sample of license plate scans reveals that 99.5 percent of this data was collected regardless of whether the vehicle or its owner was suspected of being involved in criminal activity. On average, agencies share this data with a minimum of 160 and up to 800 other agencies.

PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Government agencies often deploy ALPR systems, but they are increasingly partnering with private vendors that install and maintain the systems providing access to data on a subscription basis.

Law enforcement agencies entering into these partnerships can not only access local data gathered in their jurisdictions, but they can also tap into information gathered across the country.

And we are talking about massive amounts of information. DRN data claims its database contains more than 6.5 billion scans and that it adds 120 million data points each month.

ALPR systems run by Flock Safety have also proliferated across the U.S. The company claims more than 3,000 law enforcement agencies covering over 5,000 communities in the U.S. have installed their systems. If there are Flock cameras in your town, every law enforcement agency in the country that subscribes can tap into the local data.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Limiting state and local use of ALPR systems and the storage of ALPR data at the state and local levels can also limit the growing federal surveillance state.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, the DEA operates the National License Plate Reader Program (NLPRP). The system tracks the location of millions of vehicles through data provided by ALPRs operated on a state and local level. They’ve engaged in this for over a decade, all without a warrant. There wasn’t even public notice of the policy until 2019.

As confirmed by the NLPRP itself, state and local law enforcement agencies partner with the DEA. State and local authorities operate most of these tracking systems, often paid for by federal grant money. The DEA then taps into the local database to track the whereabouts of millions of people – for the “crime” of driving – without having to operate a huge network itself.

Since a majority of federal license plate tracking data comes from state and local law enforcement, laws banning or even restricting ALPR use are essential. As more states pass such laws, the result becomes more clear. No data equals no federal license plate tracking program.

The enactment of HB658 would put a dent in federal plans to continue location tracking via license plates. The less data that states make available to the federal government, the less ability it has to track people in Missouri and elsewhere.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB658 will be referred to committees after the legislature convenes on Jan. 8.

The post Missouri Bill Would Limit Government Use of ALPRs first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

New Hampshire Defend the Guard Act Would Push Back Against Unconstitutional War Powers

Mike Maharrey — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 17:35:17 +0000

CONCORD, N.H. (Jan. 3, 2025) – The New Hampshire Defend the Guard Act, filed in the state House for the 2025 legislative session, would require the governor to stop unconstitutional combat deployments of the state’s National Guard troops.

Rep. Tom Mannion and a bipartisan coalition of cosponsors filed House Bill 104 (HB104). The legislation would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the New Hampshire National Guard into “active duty combat” unless Congress “has passed an official declaration of war,” or “taken an official action pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the United States Constitution.”

“Active duty combat” is defined as performing the following services “in the active federal military service of the United States”:

Participation in an armed conflict in a foreign state under Title 10 of the United States Code
Performance of a hazardous service relating to an armed conflict in a foreign state under Title 10 of the United States Code.
Performance of a hazardous service through an instrumentality of war relating to an armed conflict in a foreign state under Title 10 of the United States Code.

Last year, the New Hampshire House passed a similar bill. In a post on X, Bring Our Troops Home praised the vote, noting, “The largest legislative body in the English-speaking world has just struck an incredible blow against the DC empire.” The Senate Finance Committee referred the bill to interim study.

IN EFFECT

More specifically, New Hampshire National Guard troops have participated in missions in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and elsewhere.

MILITIA CLAUSES

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 make up the “militia clauses” of the Constitution. Clause 16 authorizes Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.”

DECLARE WAR

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution delegates the power to “declare war” to Congress.

At the time the Constitution was ratified, the power to “declare” war was widely understood to mean changing the state of things from peace to war.

It’s also important to note a country can change the state of things from peace to war with a formal declaration, but it can also happen with the execution of military actions, however limited.

Simply put, any offensive measure requires congressional authorization, not just full-scale wars.

This is exactly how the Constitution was understood – and followed – by the first four presidents – Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.

Justice Joseph Story affirmed this limited role of the state militia in Martin v. Mott (1827).

DUTY

West Virginia State Rep. Pat McGeehan served as an Air Force intelligence officer in Afghanistan and has sponsored similar legislation in his state.

Webster made this observation in an 1814 speech on the floor of Congress where he urged actions similar to the New Hampshire Defend the Guard Act. He said, “The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist.”

WHAT’S NEXT

HB104 will be referred to the House State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee when the legislature convenes on Jan. 8.

The post New Hampshire Defend the Guard Act Would Push Back Against Unconstitutional War Powers first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Florida Bill Would Make Gold and Silver Legal Tender, End Taxes

Mike Maharrey — Thu, 02 Jan 2025 17:19:07 +0000

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (Jan. 2, 2025) – A bill filed in the Florida Senate would officially recognize gold and silver as legal tender and repeal state taxes on both. Passage into law would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

Sen. Ana Rodriguez filed Senate Bill 132 (S132). Under the proposed law, physical gold and silver “specie legal tender,” along with electronic currency that is 100% backed by physical gold or silver – and fully redeemable for the corresponding physical metal on demand – would be recognized as legal tender in Florida.

The term “Specie legal tender” is defined as coins with gold or silver content and bullion issued by the federal government, any foreign government, or “any other specie recognized by this state or any other state pursuant to s. 10, Art. I of the United States Constitution.”

The bill further defines gold and silver electronic currency as “a representation of physical gold, silver, specie, or bullion which may be transferred through a digital transaction.” Such currency must also be “fully redeemable as physical gold, silver, specie, or bullion.”

Under this framework, gold and silver would be treated as legal tender for all transactions within the state. They would be officially recognized as valid “to pay private debts, taxes, and fees levied by the state or local government or any subdivision thereof.”

The passage of S132 would make Florida the sixth state to recognize gold and silver as legal tender, as they always should have been doing. Utah led the way, reestablishing constitutional money in 2011. Wyoming, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana have since joined.

IN PRACTICE

Practically speaking, this would allow Florida residents to use gold or silver in both physical and electronic forms as money rather than as mere investment vehicles.

Passage of S132 would represent a big first step against the fiat-based Federal Reserve system by creating a foundation to pull the rug out from under it on the state and local levels. In essence, it would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

The next step would be for people to start taking advantage of the status of gold and silver as money by using both as such instead of Federal Reserve notes.

REMOVING TAXES

Under S132, special legal tender would be exempt from all forms of taxation.

Specie or specie legal tender may not be characterized as personal property for taxation or regulatory purposes.
The purchase or sale of any type or form of specie does not give rise to any tax liability.
The exchange of one type or form of legal tender for another type or form of legal tender does not give rise to any tax liability.

Under current law, Florida levies sales tax on transactions involving gold and silver that are under $500.

Taxes on precious metal bullion erect barriers to using gold and silver as money by raising transaction costs.

Imagine if you asked a grocery clerk to break a $5 bill and he charged you a 35-cent tax. Silly, right? After all, you were only exchanging one form of money for another. But that’s essentially what a sales tax on gold and silver bullion does. By eliminating this tax on the exchange of gold and silver, Florida would treat gold and silver specie more like money. This would support gold and silver as legal tender and break down the Fed’s monopoly on money.

BACKGROUND

The United States Constitution states in Article I, Section 10, “No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Currently, all debts and taxes in Florida are either paid with Federal Reserve Notes (dollars) which were authorized as legal tender by Congress, or with coins issued by the U.S. Treasury – very few of which have gold or silver in them.

WHAT’S NEXT

S132 will be referred to a committee when the Florida legislature convenes on March 4.

The post Florida Bill Would Make Gold and Silver Legal Tender, End Taxes first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Benjamin Franklin’s Almanack Uncovered: Wisdom They Don’t Want You to Know

Michael Boldin — Mon, 30 Dec 2024 20:40:26 +0000

Today – like every day – is a perfect time to revisit the timeless wisdom of his Poor Richard’s Almanack. First published on December 28, 1732, it became a cultural sensation over the next 25 years, blending sharp wit, practical advice, and lessons most people ignore today. In this episode, we’ll explore some of Franklin’s best wisdom that’s just as critical now as it was back then.

Path to Liberty: December 30, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Maharrey – Poor Richard’s Almanac: Benjamin Franklin’s Timeless Guide to Life, Liberty, and Frugality

Autobiography – Poor Richard’s Almanac And Other Activities

Extracts from the Gazette, 1732

Poor Richard’s 1733

Benjamin Franklin Historical Society

Lisa Morgan – The Prominent and Prodigiously Popular Poor Richard

The Frigate Bonhomme Richard

MORE VIDEO SOURCES
Watch on Rumble

FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:

Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest

The post Benjamin Franklin’s Almanack Uncovered: Wisdom They Don’t Want You to Know first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

James Madison’s Forgotten Plan to Stop Federal Tyranny Revealed

Michael Boldin — Fri, 20 Dec 2024 20:41:34 +0000

The states are “duty bound to interpose.” That’s how James Madison put it in his Virginia Resolutions, passed Dec 21 and 24, 1798, against the Alien and Sedition acts. They answer a timeless question: What should be done when the federal government oversteps its constitutional bounds? In this episode, learn 6 essential principles that make up Madison’s plan to stop federal tyranny.

Path to Liberty: December 20, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Virginia Resolutions (21 Dec 1798)

John Dickinson – Fabius IV (19 Apr 1788)

Alexander Hamilton – Federalist 28 (28 Dec 1787)

Report of 1800 (7 Jan 1800)

John Jay: An Address to the People of the State of New York (15 Apr 1788)

Episode – Sovereignty and the Constitution: Government as Agent of the People of the States

George Washington – Farewell Address (19 Sept 1796)

James Wilson – Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention (26 Nov 1787)

Patrick Henry – Virginia Ratifying Convention (7 June 1788)

St. George Tucker – View of the Constitution of the United States (1803)

Alexander Hamilton – Letter to Theodore Sedgwick (2 Feb 1799)

John Dickinson – Letter to Thomas Jefferson (18 Mar 1800)

MORE VIDEO SOURCES
Watch on Rumble

FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:

Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest

The post James Madison’s Forgotten Plan to Stop Federal Tyranny Revealed first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Constitutional Money Act Filed in Missouri House

Mike Maharrey — Fri, 20 Dec 2024 17:05:16 +0000

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Dec. 20, 2024) – Two bills filed in the Missouri House would officially recognize gold and silver as legal tender, eliminate state capital gains taxes on both, and ban support for any federal confiscation schemes.

Rep. Bill Hardwick introduced House Bill 433 (HB433). Under the “The Constitutional Money Act,” gold and silver would be accepted as legal tender in physical or electronic form, and would be receivable in payment of all debts contracted for in the state of Missouri. The bill is a companion to Senate Bill 25 (SB25).

Rep. Michael Davis filed a similar bill, House Bill 630 (HB630). It includes the same language as HB433 along with an additional provision to establish state gold and silver reserves.

Under the proposed law, the state would be required to accept gold and silver for the payment of public debts. Private debts could be settled in gold and silver at the parties’ discretion. The proposed law would also permit any entity doing business in this state to compensate its employees, in full or in part, in the dollar equivalent specie legal tender either in physical or in electronic transfer form.

The Director of the Department of Revenue would be tasked with “promulgating rules on the methods of acceptance of specie legal tender as payment for any debt, tax, fee, or obligation owed.”

The passage of HB433 or HB630 would make Missouri the sixth state to recognize gold and silver as legal tender, as they always should have been doing. Utah led the way, reestablishing constitutional money in 2011. Wyoming, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana have since joined.

IN PRACTICE

The passage of HB433 or HB630 would allow Missouri residents to use gold or silver in physical or electronic form as money rather than as mere investment vehicles.

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution for the United States expressly prohibits states from [making] “any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Virtually all debts in Missouri are either paid with Federal Reserve Notes (dollars) which were authorized as legal tender by Congress, or with coins issued by the U.S. Treasury – very few of which have gold or silver in them.

The Federal Reserve destroys this constitutional monetary system by creating a monetary monopoly based on its fiat paper currency. Without the backing of gold or silver, the central bank can easily create money out of thin air.

Passage of The Constitutional Money Act would represent a big first step against this fiat-based Federal Reserve system by creating a foundation to pull the rug out from under it on the state and local levels. In essence, it would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

The next step would be for people to start taking advantage of the status of gold and silver as money by using both as such instead of Federal Reserve notes.

The effect has been most dramatic in Utah where the Specie Legal Tender Act opened the door for the development of a robust gold and silver economy in the state. With some legal hurdles cleared away by the Act, the United Precious Metal Association (UPMA) in partnership with Alpine Gold Exchange set up the state’s first “gold bank.”

REMOVING TAXES

HB433 and HB630 would also exempt the sale of gold and silver bullion from the state’s capital gains tax.

Missouri is already one of 45 states that do not levy sales tax on gold and silver bullion. Exempting the sale of bullion from capital gains taxes takes another step toward treating gold and silver as money instead of commodities. Taxes on precious metal bullion erect barriers to using gold and silver as money by raising transaction costs.

FEDERAL CONFISCATION SCHEMES

HB433 and HB630 include provisions prohibiting any state or local cooperation with federal actions to confiscate gold or silver or that interfere with a person’s right to use legal tender in Missouri.

“Under no circumstance shall the state of Missouri or any department, agency, court, political subdivision, or instrumentality thereof enforce or attempt to enforce any federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances infringing on the right of a person to keep and use specie legal tender and electronic currency as provided in this section.”

The provisions prohibiting the state from enforcing or implementing certain federal acts rest on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program – whether constitutional or not. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842.

Based on James Madison’s four-step blueprint for states and individuals to stop federal programs, using a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” provides an extremely effective method to render federal laws unenforceable in practice because most enforcement actions rely on material support from the states.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB433 and HB630 will be referred to committees after the legislature convenes on Jan. 8.

The post Constitutional Money Act Filed in Missouri House first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Forgotten Anti-Federalist Warnings: The Pennsylvania Dissent

Alan Mosley — Wed, 18 Dec 2024 20:48:20 +0000

One of the most influential Anti-Federalist essays against the Constitution didn’t come from a single writer. It came from a group of delegates at the Pennsylvania ratifying convention. Their warnings – about centralization of power, corruption, and more – might sound eerily familiar today. And make sure to stick around, because at the end, we’ll dive into what they considered federalist dirty tricks used to push the process through

Path to Liberty: December 18, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Pennsylvania; December 12, 1787

Pauline Maier – Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788

The Debates In The Convention Of The State Of Pennsylvania, On The Adoption Of The Federal Constitution

The Dissent of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Convention, Pennsylvania Packet (18 Dec 1787)

Maharrey – Anti-Federalist Objections: Pennsylvania Dissent Explained

Episode – Anti-Federalist vs Federalist CLASH: Montesquieu and Separation of Powers

Episode – Was the Constitution Sold on a Lie? Shays’ Rebellion and Ratification

Tara Ross – James Wilson’s Speech

Concordia University – A Daily Journal for Sept 29, 1787

National Archives

MORE VIDEO SOURCES
Watch on Rumble

FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:

Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest

The post Forgotten Anti-Federalist Warnings: The Pennsylvania Dissent first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

South Carolina Bill Would Limit Government Use of ALPRs

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 18 Dec 2024 20:07:13 +0000

COLUMBIA, S.C. (Dec. 18, 2024) – A bill filed in the South Carolina House would limit the use of automatic license plate reader systems (ALPRs) and the data they collect and share.

Rep. Todd Rutherford introduced House Bill 3155 (H3155). Under the proposed law, a government agency could only use an ALPR “for the comparison of captured license plate data with data held by the Department of Motor Vehicles, SLED, the Department of Public Safety, the National Crime Information Center, a database created by law enforcement for the purposes of an ongoing investigation,” for parking enforcement, for controlling access to secure areas, and for commercial vehicle enforcement.

The legislation would prohibit the sharing or use of ALPR data for any other purpose and limit its retention to 90 days. It specifically bars selling, trading, or exchanging captured plate data for any purpose.

A COG IN THE SURVEILLANCE STATE

And as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) notes, ALPRs have a dark side.

BILLIONS OF SCANS

PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Government agencies often deploy ALPR systems, but they are increasingly partnering with private vendors that install and maintain the systems providing access to data on a subscription basis.

Law enforcement agencies entering into these partnerships can not only access local data gathered in their jurisdictions, but they can also tap into information gathered across the country.

And we are talking about massive amounts of information. DRN data claims its database contains more than 6.5 billion scans and that it adds 120 million data points each month.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Limiting state and local use of ALPR systems and the storage of ALPR data at the state and local levels can also limit the growing federal surveillance state.

The enactment of H3155 would put a dent in federal plans to continue location tracking via license plates. The less data that states make available to the federal government, the less ability it has to track people in South Carolina and elsewhere.

WHAT’S NEXT

H3155 was referred to the House Committee on Judiciary where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post South Carolina Bill Would Limit Government Use of ALPRs first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Oklahoma Bill Would Create State Bullion Depository

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 18 Dec 2024 17:45:16 +0000

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. (Dec. 18, 2024) – A bill filed in the Oklahoma Senate would establish a gold and silver bullion depository that would facilitate the everyday use of gold and silver in transactions as well.

Sen. David Bullard filed Senate Bill 33 (SB33). The legislation would create the Oklahoma Bullion Depository in the Office of the State Treasurer to serve as “the custodian, guardian, and administrator of certain bullion and specie that may be transferred or acquired by the state, or an agency, political subdivision or other instrumentality of the state.” The depository would also accept deposits of gold and silver by private individuals.

Significantly SB33 would establish a mechanism for individuals to engage in transactions using precious metals including gold and silver.

“The depository shall make available a debit card, issued upon a request by the depository account holder, in which the depository account holder may make transactions which are debited from the balance of the holder’s account. The balance available to the depository account holder through use of the debit card shall be equal to eighty percent (80%) of the current spot price of the deposits of the depository account holder.”

The bill is based on a similar law that was passed in Texas and signed into law by Gov. Abbott in 2015. The Texas depository received its first deposits in the summer of 2018. The following year, the state exempted precious metals in these depositories from taxation.

IMPACT

The Oklahoma Bullion Depository would open the market to sound money in day-to-day transactions. Using their bullion account, any person or entity would be able to do business using a debit card that seamlessly converts gold and silver held in the depository to fiat currency in the background. This would enable private individuals and businesses to purchase goods and services using assets held in their depository account in the same way they use dollars held in a bank today.

In effect, bullion depository accounts with a transactional mechanism would give people a way to shield themselves from the rapid loss of purchasing power inherent in the fiat dollar.

The Oklahoma Bullion Depository would also create an avenue toward financial independence. Countries around the world have been buying gold to limit their dependence on the U.S. dollar. In a discussion about the Texas Bullion Depository, University of Houston political science professor Brandon Rottinghaus said a state depository can serve a similar function.

“This is another in a long line of ways to make Texas more self-reliant and less tethered to the federal government. The financial impact is small but the political impact is telling, Many conservatives are interested in returning to the gold standard and circumvent the Federal Reserve in whatever small way they can.”

The United States Constitution states in Article I, Section 10, “No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”

The creation of an Oklahoma Gold Depository would take another step toward that constitutional requirement, ignored for decades in every state. Such a tactic would undermine the monopoly of the Federal Reserve System by introducing competition into the monetary system.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB33 will be referred to a committee when the legislative session begins on Feb. 3.

The post Oklahoma Bill Would Create State Bullion Depository first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

These Are the Times That Try Men’s Souls: Words That Saved the Revolution

Michael Boldin — Mon, 16 Dec 2024 21:08:22 +0000

With those unforgettable words, Thomas Paine lit a fire in the hearts of patriots during one of the darkest moments of the American Revolution. First published on December 19, 1776, The American Crisis was more than just an essay – it was a rallying cry that turned despair into victory. And it was filled with timeless wisdom that we can all find inspiration from today.

Path to Liberty: December 16, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Thomas Paine – The American Crisis No. 1 (19 Dec 1776)

Thomas Paine – Letter to the Abbe Raynal (1782)

California Society, Sons of the American Revolution

George Washington – Letter to Lund Washington (10-17 Dec 1776)

Thomas Paine – Letter to Samuel Adams (1 Jan 1803)

Boldin – These are the Times that Try Men’s Souls

John Dickinson – The Liberty Song (1768)

Jett Connor – The American Crisis Before Crossing the Delaware?

Jett Connor – A Brief Publication History of the “Times That Try Men’s Souls”

Travis Shaw – American Battlefield Trust

MORE VIDEO SOURCES
Watch on Rumble

FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:

Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest

The post These Are the Times That Try Men’s Souls: Words That Saved the Revolution first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

2nd Amendment: Founders’ Blueprint to Defeat Gun Control

Michael Boldin — Fri, 13 Dec 2024 18:56:30 +0000

The natural right of self defence is one of our most essential rights, part of the first law of nature. But that hasn’t stopped governments from violating it. So the founders told us over and over that it’s up to us – the people of the states – to protect and defend our own constitution and our own liberty – whether the government likes it, or not. In this episode, we’re applying their principles and strategy to protect and defend the 2nd Amendment from federal violations.

Path to Liberty: December 13, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

St. George Tucker – View of the Constitution of the United States (1803)

James Wilson – Lectures on Law

James Iredell – North Carolina Ratifying Convention (30 Jul 1788)

Alexander Hamilton – Federalist 33 (3 Jan 1788)

James Iredell- North Carolina Ratifying Convention (28 Jul 1788)

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to Philip Mazzei (24 Apr 1796)

Thomas Paine – Rights of Man, Part II (1792)

James Otis, Jr – Freeborn American (27 Apr 1767)

John Dickinson – Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania XI (1767)

Theophilus Parsons – Massachusetts Ratifying Convention (23 Jan 1788)

John Steele – North Carolina Ratifying Convention (25 Jul 1788)

James Madison – Federalist 46 (29 Jan 1788)

Roger Sherman (8 Dec 1787)

James Otis, Jr (11 Jan 1762)

Samuel Adams – Candidus, Boston Gazette (14 Oct 1771)

MORE VIDEO SOURCES
Watch on Rumble

FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:

Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest

The post 2nd Amendment: Founders’ Blueprint to Defeat Gun Control first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

South Carolina Bills Would Exclude CBDC From the State Definition of Money

Mike Maharrey — Thu, 12 Dec 2024 23:31:40 +0000

COLUMBIA, S.C. (Dec. 12, 2024) – Bills introduced in the South Carolina House would expressly exclude a central bank digital currency (CBDC) from the definition of money under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), creating potentially significant roadblocks to its use as such in the Palmetto State.

Rep. Kathy Landing introduced House Bill 3304 (H3304). Under South Carolina’s UCC, “money” currently means “a medium of exchange currently authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government. The term includes a monetary unit of account established by an intergovernmental organization or by agreement between two or more countries.” H3304 adds the term “does not include any central bank digital currency” to that definition.

The bill would also specifically prohibit any banking corporation operating in the state from offering any service, or approving or conducting any transaction, that involves central bank digital currency.

Rep. Bill Taylor introduced House Bill 3443 (H3442), The legislation would make the same change to the definition of money in the UCC but does not include the provisions barring banks from facilitating the use of CBDC.

Similar legislation has already been signed as law in Indiana, Florida, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah.

IN PRACTICE

While it remains unclear exactly how it would play out, removing a CBDC from the definition of money would throw up roadblocks if the federal government and its central bank try to implement one.

Passage of this bill would, as noted by one opponent of the legislation, put a CBDC “into the bucket of ‘general intangibles’” – rather than money, and wouldn’t ban its use completely.

But it could still potentially gum up the works and make it difficult for the government to fully implement a CBDC.

We’ve heard this song and dance on other issues before. That’s what they said before California legalized medical marijuana in 1996. It didn’t quite turn out that way.

CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCIES (CBDC)

In fact, a CBDC is nothing more than the digital offspring of paper fiat money with all the negative characteristics that come with it.

As Thomas Jefferson advised, “It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered.”

WHAT’S NEXT

H3304 was referred to the House Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry. H3442 was referred to the House Committee on Judiciary. The bills must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post South Carolina Bills Would Exclude CBDC From the State Definition of Money first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Oklahoma Bill Would Prohibit Credit Card Codes to Track Firearms Purchases

Michael Boldin — Wed, 11 Dec 2024 23:03:46 +0000

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. (Dec. 11, 2024) – A bill introduced in the Oklahoma Senate would prohibit financial institutions operating in the state from using a credit card merchant code to enable the tracking of firearm and ammunition purchases.

Sen. Micheal Bergstrom filed Senate Bill 16 (SB16). The legislation would bar financial institutions operating in the state from using a merchant category code to track or identify purchases of firearms, firearms accessories and ammunition.

“A payment card network shall not require or incentivize the use of a merchant category code in a manner that distinguishes a firearm retailer from other retailers.”

The proposed law also bars financial institutions from even assigning such codes: “a firearm retailer a merchant category code that distinguishes the firearm retailer from other retailers.”

Language in the bills explicitly prohibits both government and private entities from keeping a list or registry of privately owned firearms.

To date, at least 14 states have banned the use of firearms merchant codes.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS

In response to legislation like SB16, the major credit card payment networks “paused” implementation of the firearms merchant code in March 2023.

In July 2024, Visa and Mastercard told USA Today that they were only using the firearms code in the states that require it by law.

Additionally, data collected from this merchant code would almost certainly end up in federal government databases.

BACKGROUND

In effect, the firearms code is a de facto gun registry.

In the letter to payment card networks, federal lawmakers stated that the new Merchant Category Code for firearms retailers would be “. . .the first step towards facilitating the collection of valuable financial data that could help law enforcement in countering the financing of terrorism efforts,” expressing a clear government expectation that networks will utilize the new Merchant Category Code to conduct mass surveillance of firearms and ammunition purchases in cooperation with law enforcement.

The more states that ban such codes, the more likely this program gets scrapped permanently.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB16 will be referred to committee when the legislative session begins on Feb. 3.

The post Oklahoma Bill Would Prohibit Credit Card Codes to Track Firearms Purchases first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Lysander Spooner: Radical Truths on Tyranny and the Constitution

Michael Boldin — Wed, 11 Dec 2024 21:57:31 +0000

“Tyrants care nothing for discussions that are to end only in discussion.” Lysander Spooner didn’t pull any punches. He knew that words without action were meaningless in the fight against tyranny. In this episode, we’ll dive into some of his most radical and powerful takes on the Constitution – his ideas matter now more than ever.

Path to Liberty: December 11, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Lysander Spooner – No Treason VI, The Constitution of No Authority (1870)

Episode – Constitution: The Founders on the Limits of Parchment Barriers

A Defence for Fugitive Slaves (1850)

Essay on the Trial by Jury (1852)

Episode – Jury Nullification: The People’s Secret Weapon Against Tyranny

Forced Consent (1873)

Address of the Free Constitutionalists to the People of the United States (1860)

Episode – John Locke vs Lysander Spooner: Consent of the Governed

MORE VIDEO SOURCES
Watch on Rumble

FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:

Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest

The post Lysander Spooner: Radical Truths on Tyranny and the Constitution first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

South Carolina Defend the Guard Act Would Push Back Against Unconstitutional War Powers

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 11 Dec 2024 19:29:21 +0000

COLUMBIA S.C. (Dec. 11, 2024) – The South Carolina Defend the Guard Act, filed in the state House for the 2025 legislative session, would require the governor to stop unconstitutional combat deployments of the state’s National Guard troops.

Rep. Thomas Beach filed House Bill 3308 (H3308). The legislation would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the South Carolina National Guard into “active duty combat” unless Congress “has passed an official declaration of war … pursuant to Clause 11, Section 8, Article I, of the United States Constitution” or “taken an official action pursuant to Clause 15, Section 8, Article I, of the United States Constitution.”

“Active duty combat” is defined as performing the following services in the active federal military service of the United States:

Participation in an armed conflict.
Performance of a hazardous service relating to an armed conflict in a foreign state.
Performance of a duty through an instrumentality of war

IN EFFECT

More specifically, South Carolina National Guard troops have participated in missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Kuwait, Kosovo, and elsewhere.

MILITIA CLAUSES

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 make up the “militia clauses” of the Constitution. Clause 16 authorizes Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.”

DECLARE WAR

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution delegates the power to “declare war” to Congress.

At the time the Constitution was ratified, the power to “declare” war was widely understood to mean changing the state of things from peace to war.

It’s also important to note a country can change the state of things from peace to war with a formal declaration, but it can also happen with the execution of military actions, however limited.

Simply put, any offensive measure requires congressional authorization, not just full-scale wars.

This is exactly how the Constitution was understood – and followed – by the first four presidents – Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.

Justice Joseph Story affirmed this limited role of the state militia in Martin v. Mott (1827).

DUTY

West Virginia State Rep. Pat McGeehan served as an Air Force intelligence officer in Afghanistan and has sponsored similar legislation in his state.

Webster made this observation in an 1814 speech on the floor of Congress where he urged actions similar to the South Carolina Defend the Guard Act. He said, “The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist.”

WHAT’S NEXT

H3308 was referred to the House Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs where it will need to get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post South Carolina Defend the Guard Act Would Push Back Against Unconstitutional War Powers first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Missouri Bill Would Create State Process to Circumvent Qualified Immunity

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 11 Dec 2024 17:50:36 +0000

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Dec. 11, 2024) – A bill filed in the Missouri House would allow lawsuits against law enforcement officers in state court for rights violations, eliminating “qualified immunity” as a defense.

Rep. LaKeySha Bosley filed House Bill 258 (HB258). Under the proposed law, any law enforcement officer who “under color of law, deprives any individual of his or her constitutional rights” would be liable for legal or equitable relief in the state courts.

HB258 explicitly excludes “qualified immunity” as a defense in such cases.

ANOTHER PATH

Typically, people sue police for using excessive force or other types of misconduct in the federal court system under the U.S. Bill of Rights. But federal courts created a qualified immunity defense out of thin air, making it nearly impossible to hold law enforcement officers responsible for actions taken in the line of duty.

The Supreme Court and Congress show no interest in rolling back the qualified immunity doctrine. The best path forward is to bypass the federal system.

In effect, the passage of HB258 would do so by creating an alternative path to address violations of rights in state court with no qualified immunity hurdle to clear.

Similar laws have been passed in Colorado and New Mexico, and California closed some of the qualified immunity loopholes in its state law.

THE PROCESS

It remains unclear how the process created by HB258 would play out.

The second question is if police officers will be able to transfer cases to federal jurisdiction to take advantage of qualified immunity.

Language in HB258 opens that door. The proposed law would allow people to sue in state court for violations of the “the constitution.” This presumably refers to the U.S. Constitution. All matters regarding the U.S. Constitution or federal law will be remanded to federal courts. To avoid this, plaintiffs would have to sue based solely on the Missouri constitution and its bill of rights. The only way to avoid federal jurisdiction and ensure federal qualified immunity doesn’t come into play would be to limit the suit to state constitutional issues.

Even if the suit is focused on state law and the Missouri constitution, state and local law enforcement officers working on joint state/federal task forces would almost certainly be able to move the case to federal court. They are effectively treated as federal agents.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB258 will be assigned to a House committee after the legislature convenes on Jan. 8.

The post Missouri Bill Would Create State Process to Circumvent Qualified Immunity first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Anti-Federalist vs Federalist CLASH: Montesquieu and Separation of Powers

Michael Boldin — Mon, 09 Dec 2024 20:58:27 +0000

Liberty is doomed where power is united – consolidated in the same hands. That’s the warning Montesquieu gave us about separation of powers. This was one of the biggest battles between Federalists and Anti-Federalists But here’s the twist: both sides used the exact same words to support opposite arguments. In this episode, we’re diving into this critical debate over the ideas of the most-cited political writer of the ratification debates

Path to Liberty: December 9, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Natelson – The ideas that formed the Constitution: Montesquieu

Paul Merrill Spurlin – Montesquieu and the American Constitution

Center for the Study of the American Constitution

The Spirit of Laws, Vol. 1, Book XI – Of the Laws that form political Liberty, with regard to the Constitution

James Madison – Political Observations (20 Apr 1795)

Constitution of Virginia (1776)

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1780)

Boldin – Separation of Powers: A “Dogmatic Maxim” in the Constitution

Richard Peters – Letter to John Adams (15 June 1789)

Separation of Powers with Checks and Balances

Richard Henry Lee – Letter to Gov. Edmund Randolph (16 Oct 1787)

Centinel II (24 Oct 1787)

The Dissent of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Convention (18 Dec 1787)

Impartial Examiner IV (11 June 1788)

Maharrey – George Mason’s Anti-Federalist Arguments Against the Constitution

John C. Pinheiro – How the Founders Read Montesquieu

James Madison – Federalist 47 (1 Feb 1788)

William Davie – North Carolina Ratifying Convention (28 July 1788)

James Wilson – Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention (4 Dec 1787)

Episode – The Other 16th Amendment: Separation of Powers

William Reddinger – John Dickinson and the Moderation of Constitutional Balance in The Letters of Fabius

MORE VIDEO SOURCES
Watch on Rumble

FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:

Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest

The post Anti-Federalist vs Federalist CLASH: Montesquieu and Separation of Powers first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Missouri Bills Would Prohibit Credit Card Codes to Track Firearms Purchases

Mike Maharrey — Sat, 07 Dec 2024 22:18:44 +0000

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Dec. 7, 2024) – Bills introduced in the Missouri House and Senate would prohibit financial institutions operating in the state from using a credit card merchant code to enable the tracking of firearm and ammunition purchases.

Rep. Willard Haley filed House Bill 51 (HB51). Sen. Curtis Trent filed Senate Bill 216 (SB216). The legislation would bar financial institutions operating in the state from “requiring the usage of the firearms code in a way that distinguishes a firearms retailer physically located in the state of Missouri from Missouri general merchandise retailers or sporting goods retailers.”

The proposed law also bars financial institutions from discriminating against a firearms retailer by levying additional fees, denying lawful transactions, or taking any against a customer or merchant intended to suppress lawful transactions involving firearms.

Language in the bills explicitly prohibits both government and private entities from keeping a list or registry of privately owned firearms.

To date, at least 14 states have banned the use of firearms merchant codes.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS

In response to legislation like HB51 and SB216, the major credit card payment networks “paused” implementation of the firearms merchant code in March 2023.

In July 2024, Visa and Mastercard told USA Today that they were only using the firearms code in the states that require it by law.

Additionally, data collected from this merchant code would almost certainly end up in federal government databases.

BACKGROUND

In effect, the firearms code is a de facto gun registry.

In the letter to payment card networks, federal lawmakers stated that the new Merchant Category Code for firearms retailers would be “. . .the first step towards facilitating the collection of valuable financial data that could help law enforcement in countering the financing of terrorism efforts,” expressing a clear government expectation that networks will utilize the new Merchant Category Code to conduct mass surveillance of firearms and ammunition purchases in cooperation with law enforcement.

The more states that ban such codes, the more likely this program gets scrapped permanently.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB51 and SB216 will be referred to committees when the legislative session begins on Jan. 8.

The post Missouri Bills Would Prohibit Credit Card Codes to Track Firearms Purchases first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Rights Are Not Gifts from Government: The Founders’ View

Michael Boldin — Fri, 06 Dec 2024 22:33:09 +0000

Rights don’t come from a constitution, a bill of rights, or any document at all. Your natural rights – come from your creator – and you have them by the nature of your humanity. Even civil rights – are built on the foundation of natural rights. These were widely-held views from the founders and old revolutionaries.

Path to Liberty: December 6, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Declaration of Independence (4 July 1776)

Virginia Declaration of Rights (12 June 1776)

Thomas Paine – Rights of Man, Part II (1792)

John Dickinson – An address to the Committee of Correspondence in Barbados (1766)

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to Henry Lee (8 May 1825)

Alexander Hamilton – The Farmer Refuted, &c. (23 Feb 1775)

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to Mason Locke Weems (13 Dec 1804)

Episode – Thomas Jefferson’s Favorite Book on Government?

Francis Hutcheson – An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue (1726)