TAC Daily Digest

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.”

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

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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

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, 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.”

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 State 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 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 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.

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.

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

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)

Episode – Jefferson’s Trinity

Thomas Paine – Rights of Man, Part I (1791)

Samuel Adams – The Rights of the Colonists (20 Nov 1772)

Episode – Everyone Armed to Preserve Liberty

James Otis, Jr – The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved (1764)

John Jay – Letter to J.C. Dongan (7 Feb 1792)

Luther Martin – Philadelphia Convention (27-28 June 1787)

Theophilus Parsons – Massachusetts Ratifying Convention (5 Feb 1788)

Thomas Paine – Letter to Thomas Jefferson (1788)

James Madison – Speech Proposing Amendments to the Constitution (8 June 1789)

Thomas Paine – Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)

Thomas Jefferson – A Summary View of the Rights of British America (July 1774)

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 Rights Are Not Gifts from Government: The Founders’ View first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Missouri “Constitutional Money Act” Would Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender

Mike Maharrey — Thu, 05 Dec 2024 02:08:07 +0000

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Dec. 4, 2024) – Two bills filed in the Missouri Senate would officially recognize gold and silver as legal tender, eliminate state capital gains taxes on both, and ban support for any federal confiscation schemes.

Sen. Mike Moon introduced Senate Bill 25 (SB25). 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 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 SB25 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.

Sen. Rick Brattin introduced Senate Bill 194 (SB194) with similar provisions. Additionally, it would ban the state from accepting central bank digital currency (CBDC) in payment, and would require the state to hold gold and silver equal to or greater than 1 percent of state funds.

IN PRACTICE

Passage would allow Missouri residents to use gold or silver in physical or electronic form as money rather than as mere investment vehicles.

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

SB25 and SB194 would also exempt the sale of gold and silver bullion from the state’s capital gains tax.

FEDERAL CONFISCATION SCHEMES

SB25 includes 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.”

WHAT’S NEXT

SB25 and SB194 will be referred to a committee after the legislature convenes on Jan. 8.

The post Missouri “Constitutional Money Act” Would Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

4 Forgotten Principles That Fueled the American Revolution

Michael Boldin — Wed, 04 Dec 2024 20:48:45 +0000

Division of power, precedent, the right to resist, and more – essential – and totally forgotten – principles that fueled the American Revolution. They’re all drawn from John Dickinson’s 1767 Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania. Totally forgotten and ignored today, but they were the most widely-read writings on American liberty prior to the War for Independence.

Path to Liberty: December 4, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania (full text)

Maharrey – Forgotten Foundation of the Revolution: Letters from a Farmer

Letter 12

Montesquieu – The Spirit of Law Chap. XIII

Letter 4

Declaration of Rights and Resolves – Resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress (19 Oct 1765)

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 4 Forgotten Principles That Fueled the American Revolution first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Texas Bill Would End Civil Asset Forfeiture; Take First Step to Opt State Out of Federal Program

Mike Maharrey — Tue, 26 Nov 2024 23:13:34 +0000

AUSTIN, Texas (Nov. 26, 2024) – A bill filed in the Texas House would repeal the state’s civil asset forfeiture law, and take a step toward opting the state out of the federal “equitable sharing” forfeiture program as well.

Rep. Senfornia Thompson filed House Bill 914 (HB914). The legislation would replace the state’s civil asset forfeiture process with a criminal procedure requiring a conviction before the state could permanently seize property. Under the current process, the state can take a person’s property through the civil process even if they were never convicted of a crime.

HB914 would also address the “policing for profit” motive inherent in the civil process by requiring all forfeiture proceeds left after expenses to be deposited in the county’s general fund. Under the current process, law enforcement agencies can keep up to 70 percent of forfeiture proceeds in uncontested cases and up to 100 percent in contested cases.

FEDERAL LOOPHOLE

HB914 would take the first step toward closing 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.”

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.

The following provisions in HB914 would limit adoption in Texas.

A law enforcement agency or attorney representing the state may not directly or indirectly transfer seized property to any federal law enforcement authority or other federal agency unless:

(1) the value of the seized property exceeds $50,000; and
(2) the attorney representing the state determines that:
(A) the activity giving rise to the investigation or seizure is interstate in nature and sufficiently complex to justify the transfer; or
(B) the seized property may only be forfeited under federal law.

It’s difficult to say exactly how many cases would be eligible for transfer with that $50,000 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.

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 3,873 cases reported in 2023 included proceeds above $50K.

Although HB914 would significantly limit adoption, the federal forfeiture loophole would still remain wide open and completely unrestricted if the seizure was by a state-federal joint task force or pursuant to a joint investigation with federal law enforcement authorities. These generally account for about 85 percent of federal forfeiture cases.

In effect, the passage of the law would significantly impact about 15 percent of equitable sharing cases, a good starting point. However, supporters of the effort should be ready to put forth follow-up legislation to address the joint task force loophole if they are unable to convince the legislature to expand the current bill this year.

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

HB914 will be assigned to House committees when the 2025 legislative session begins on Jan. 14.

The post Texas Bill Would End Civil Asset Forfeiture; Take First Step to Opt State Out of Federal Program first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Texas Bill Would Require State to Hold Gold and Silver Reserves

Mike Maharrey — Tue, 26 Nov 2024 04:30:17 +0000

AUSTIN, Texas (Nov. 25, 2024) – A bill filed in the Texas House would require the state to hold precious metal reserves. This would create a foundation for the Lone Star State to achieve more financial independence and take a small step toward undermining the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money.

Rep. Mark Dorazio filed House Bill 1062 (HB1062). The proposed law would require the state comptroller to purchase $4 billion in gold bullion and $1 billion in silver bullion during the biennium beginning Sept. 1, 2024, and appropriate funds for the purchase. The gold would be held in the Texas Bullion Depository.

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 Texas 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 Texas as they are to any country.

When Texas opened its gold depository in 2018, University of Houston political science professor Brandon Rottinghaus made a similar point.

“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.”

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

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.” But currently, most debts and taxes in most states are either paid with Federal Reserve Notes (dollars) 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 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.

HB1062 can expand the foundation for sound money in Texas by establishing gold and silver as important reserve assets.

It would also take another step in the process of abolishing the Federal Reserve system by attacking it from the bottom up – pulling the rug out from under it by working to make its functions irrelevant at the state and local levels and setting the stage to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

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

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

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

WHAT’S NEXT

HB1062 will be referred to a House committee when the legislative session begins on Jan. 14

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

2nd Amendment: Everyone Armed to Preserve Liberty (Founders Warnings)

Michael Boldin — Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:22:17 +0000

The founders knew that an armed society was essential to preserving liberty – because they lived it first hand. In fact, this was one of the most critical lessons they passed down to us. In this episode, learn some powerful views from leading founders and old revolutionaries on the right to keep and bear arms as a natural right, on the role of the militia as a defence against both foreign and domestic danger, and the goal that everyone be armed to preserve liberty.

Path to Liberty: November 22, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

George Washington – Sentiments on a Peace Establishment (1 May 1783)

Dickinson, Jefferson – Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms (6 July 1775)

Samuel Adams – The Rights of the Colonists (20 Nov 1772)

George Washington – First Annual Message to Congress (8 Jan 1790)

Henry Knox – Letter to George Washington (18 Jan 1790)

George Mason – Virginia Ratifying Convention (16 June 1788)

Federal Farmer XVIII (25 Jan 1788)

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to Destutt De Tracy (26 Jan 1811)

Patrick Henry – Virginia Ratifying Convention (13 June 1788)

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

Noah Webster – A Citizen of America: An Examination Into the Leading Principles of America (17 Oct 1787)

Episode – 4 Main Reasons for the 2nd Amendment

Luther Martin – Genuine Information VII (18 Jan 1788)

James Madison – Federalist 46 (29 Jan 1788)

John Hancock – Massachusetts Ratifying Convention (6 Feb 1788)

Mercy Otis Warren – Observations on the New Constitution (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 2nd Amendment: Everyone Armed to Preserve Liberty (Founders Warnings) first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Texas Bills Would Establish 100% Backed Gold and Silver Transactional Currency

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 20 Nov 2024 19:48:10 +0000

AUSTIN, Texas (Nov. 20, 2024) – Two bills filed in the Texas House would create 100% backed gold and silver-backed transactional currencies that would serve as legal tender in the state. This would create a foundation for the people to undermine the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money.

Rep. Mark Dorazio filed House Bill 1049 (HB1049) and House Bill 1056 (HB1056). The language in both bills is nearly identical but they add the provisions to different sections of the Texas code.

Under the proposed law, the Texas Comptroller would issue gold and silver specie (coins) through the Texas Bullion Depository and also establish gold and silver transactional currency defined as “the representation of gold and silver specie and bullion held in the pooled depository account.”

The Depository would be required to hold enough gold and silver to back 100 percent of the issued currency.

Holders of gold and silver specie and currency would be able to use them as “legal tender in payment of debt” in the state of Texas. The gold and silver-backed currency would be electronically transferable to another person.

Gold and silver-backed currency would be redeemable in specie or at the spot price of gold in U.S. dollars minus applicable fees.

In practice, the passage of HB1049 or HB1056 would allow any person to conduct business transactions using gold or silver.

IMPACT

The passage of this legislation would create a sound money alternative to U.S. dollars in both physical and electronic form.

Using gold and silver-backed transactional currency, any person or entity would be able to do business using a debit card that seamlessly converts gold and silver to fiat currency in the background. Private individuals and businesses would be able to purchase goods and services using assets held in the Texas Gold Depository in the same way they use dollars held in a bank today.

Gold and silver-backed transactional currency would give people a way to shield themselves from the rapid loss of purchasing power inherent in the fiat dollar.

Over time, making gold and silver available for regular, daily transactions by the general public could have a wide-ranging impact. Professor William Greene is an expert on constitutional tender and said in a paper for the Mises Institute that if people in multiple states actually start using gold and silver instead of Federal Reserve notes, it would effectively nullify the Federal Reserve and end the federal government’s monopoly on money.

“Over time, as residents of the state use both Federal Reserve notes and silver and gold coins, the fact that the coins hold their value more than Federal Reserve notes do will lead to a ‘reverse Gresham’s Law’ effect, where good money (gold and silver coins) will drive out bad money (Federal Reserve notes).

“As this happens, a cascade of events can begin to occur, including the flow of real wealth toward the state’s treasury, an influx of banking business from outside of the state – as people in other states carry out their desire to bank with sound money – and an eventual outcry against the use of Federal Reserve notes for any transactions.”

Gresham’s Law holds that “bad money drives out good.” For example, when the U.S. government replaced silver quarters and dimes with coins made primarily of less valuable copper, the cheap coins drove the silver out of circulation. People hoarded the more valuable silver coins and spent the less valuable copper money. So, how do you reverse Gresham?

The key is to make it easier to use gold and silver in everyday transactions. The reason bad money drives out good is that governments put up barriers to using sound money in day-to-day life. That makes it more costly to spend gold and silver and incentivizes hoarding. When you remove legal and tax barriers, you level the playing field and allow gold and silver to compete head-to-head with Federal Reserve notes. On an even playing field, gold and silver beat fiat money every time.

In most states, debts and taxes must either get paid with Federal Reserve Notes (dollars), 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 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 a transactional gold and silver currency 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

HB1049 and HB1056 will be assigned to House committees when the 2025 legislative session begins on Jan. 14.

The post Texas Bills Would Establish 100% Backed Gold and Silver Transactional Currency first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Trust No One with Power: Forgotten and Ignored Warnings from the Founders

Michael Boldin — Wed, 20 Nov 2024 19:13:55 +0000

The Founders warned us – over and over again – that power always expands, no matter who holds it. So, you can’t trust anyone with power, no matter how much you like them or what they do, because that same power will eventually fall into the hands of someone hell-bent on destroying your liberty. In this episode, you’ll learn some of the most powerful warnings from the Founders about the dangers of power – warnings we can’t afford to ignore any longer.

Path to Liberty: November 20, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

John Adams – Notes for an Oration at Braintree (Spring 1772)

Mercy Otis Warren – History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution vol. 2

John Adams – An Essay on Man’s Lust for Power, with the Author’s Comment in 1807 (29 Aug 1763)

John Dickinson – Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania No. VI (1767)

Samuel Adams – Letter to James Warren (24 Oct 1780)

George Mason – Philadelphia Convention (11 July 1787)

Abigail Adams – Letter to John Adams (27 Nov 1775)

Samuel Adams – Loyalty and Sedition – Essay in The Advertiser (1748)

Patrick Henry – Virginia Ratifying Convention (5 June 1788)

Jefferson & Dickinson – Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms (6 July 1775)

John Jay – Address to the People of New York (15 Apr 1788)

Oliver Ellsworth – A Landholder III (19 Nov 1787)

Patrick Henry – Virginia Ratifying Convention (9 June 1788)

Richard Henry Lee – Letter to Patrick Henry (28 May 1789)

George Washington – Farewell Address (19 Sept 1796)

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 Trust No One with Power: Forgotten and Ignored Warnings from the Founders first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Defend the Guard Act Filed in the Texas House

Mike Maharrey — Tue, 19 Nov 2024 17:31:39 +0000

AUSTIN, Texas (Nov. 19, 2024) – The Defend the Guard Act, filed in the Texas House for the 2025 legislative session, would require the governor to stop unconstitutional combat deployments of the state’s National Guard troops.

Rep. Briscoe Cain filed House Bill 930 (HB930). The legislation would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the Texas National Guard into “active duty combat” unless Congress “officially declares war in accordance with Clause 11, Section 8, Article I, United States Constitution,” or if Congress “takes other official action in accordance with Clause 15, Section 8, Article I, 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.
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, Texas National Guard troops have participated in missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Estonia, Chile, and several other countries.

Since none of these missions have been accompanied by a Constitutional declaration of war, the Defend the Guard Act would have prohibited many of those deployments.

BACKGROUND

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 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.

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.”

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.

RETURNING TO THE CONSTITUTION

The founding generation was careful to ensure the president wouldn’t have the power to drag the United States into endless wars. 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.

Congress has abrogated its responsibility and allowed the president to exercise almost complete discretion when it comes to war. Passage of Defend the Guard legislation would pressure Congress to do its constitutional duty.

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.”

Passage of Defend the Guard would also force the federal government to only use the Guard for the three expressly delegated purposes in the Constitution, and at other times to remain where the Guard belongs, at home, supporting and protecting their home state.

While getting this bill passed 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 Texas 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

HB930 will be assigned to a House committee when the 2025 legislative session begins on Jan. 14.

The post Defend the Guard Act Filed in the Texas House first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Michigan Bill Would Take First Steps Against a CBDC

Michael Boldin — Mon, 18 Nov 2024 23:01:29 +0000

LANSING, Mich. (Nov 18, 2024) – A bill filed in the Michigan House would take the first steps toward limiting the impact of any potential future central bank digital currency (CBDC) in the state.

House Bill 6147 (HB6147) would prohibit a state governmental agency or any political subdivision from accepting a payment using central bank digital currency. It would also bar the same from advocating for or supporting any test of a central bank digital currency.

HB6147 is similar to a law passed in Alabama in 2023 and in Indiana, South Dakota, North Carolina and Georgia in 2024.

IN PRACTICE

In the spirit of James Madison’s blueprint in Federalist #46, the enactment of HB6147 would create “impediments” to the implementation of a CBDC in Michigan. 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.”

Other states have also taken steps to block the use of CBDCs. Indiana, Florida, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah have enacted laws that ban the use of a central bank digital currency (CBDC) as money in the state.

How such legislation will play out in practice against a CBDC, should the federal government attempt to implement one, is unknown.

Opponents of the legislation 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.

In the ramp-up to the 1996 vote on Proposition 215 in California, voters were repeatedly told that legalization of marijuana, even for limited medical purposes, was a fruitless effort, since, under the supremacy clause, any such state law would be automatically overridden by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA). At best, opponents told Californians, the state would end up in a costly, and losing court effort.

But despite those warnings, Californians voted yes, setting in motion the massive state-level movement we see today, where a growing majority of states have legalized what the federal government prohibits. Ultimately, the federal government will likely have to back down, even if just to save face, because it has become impossible to fully enforce its federal prohibition over this massive state and individual resistance.

A similar scenario played out in response to the REAL ID Act of 2005. The national ID system still isn’t fully up and running more than 17 years after the “final deadline” for full implementation.

Why not?

Because a significant number of states decided not to participate, drug their feet, or in some cases, simply provide residents with a choice to opt out. Federal officials have confirmed that state-level roadblocks to implementation are the primary reason for the continuing delays.

“Roadblock” is likely the way this legislation to oppose a CBDC could play out, and it’s part of James Madison’s four-step blueprint for how states can stop federal programs.

But, as can be seen so far with issues like marijuana and the REAL ID Act, whether a federal program is implemented or not ultimately gets down to the number of roadblocks put up by states, and the willingness of the people to participate, or not.

CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCIES (CBDC)

Digital currencies exist as virtual banknotes or coins held in a digital wallet on your computer or smartphone. The difference between a central bank (government) digital currency and peer-to-peer electronic cash such as bitcoin is that the value of the digital currency is backed and controlled by the government, just like traditional fiat currency.

Government-issued digital currencies are sold on the promise of providing a safe, convenient, and more secure alternative to physical cash. We’re also told it will help stop dangerous criminals who like the intractability of cash. But there is a darker side – the promise of control.

At the root of the move toward government digital currency is “the war on cash.” The elimination of cash creates the potential for the government to track and even control consumer spending.

Imagine if there was no cash. It would be impossible to hide even the smallest transaction from the government’s eyes. Something as simple as your morning trip to Starbucks wouldn’t be a secret from government officials. As Bloomberg put it in an article published when China launched a digital yuan pilot program in 2020, digital currency “offers China’s authorities a degree of control never possible with physical money.”

The government could even “turn off” an individual’s ability to make purchases. Bloomberg described just how much control a digital currency could give Chinese officials.

The PBOC has also indicated that it could put limits on the sizes of some transactions, or even require an appointment to make large ones. Some observers wonder whether payments could be linked to the emerging social-credit system, wherein citizens with exemplary behavior are ‘whitelisted’ for privileges, while those with criminal and other infractions find themselves left out. ‘China’s goal is not to make payments more convenient but to replace cash, so it can keep closer tabs on people than it already does,’ argues Aaron Brown, a crypto investor who writes for Bloomberg Opinion.”

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 digital currency, but this pilot program reveals the idea is further along than most people realized.

The post Michigan Bill Would Take First Steps Against a CBDC first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Forgotten Founder Tench Coxe: The “Other” Federalist Papers Revealed

Michael Boldin — Mon, 18 Nov 2024 19:28:50 +0000

His writings had far more influence on the debates over the Constitution than the Federalist Papers we hear so much about today. In this episode, learn his top-4 arguments for ratification, including a clear line in the sand on delegated and reserved powers, the true source of government power, the militia, and much more.

Path to Liberty: November 18, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

NEW BOOK – The Other Federalist Papers: Tench Coxe

Maharrey – Forgotten Federalist who Helped Influence Ratification of the Constitution

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to William Johnson (12 June 1823)

James Madison – Letter to Henry Lee (25 June 1824)

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

An American Citizen II (28 Sept 1787)

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 Founder Tench Coxe: The “Other” Federalist Papers Revealed first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Invasion and Birthright Citizenship

Michael D. Ramsey — Mon, 18 Nov 2024 19:15:07 +0000

Josh Blackman recently published at Volokh Conspiracy an interview with Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho. Among other topics, Judge Ho had this brief comment on birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment:

[A]nyone who reads my prior writings on these topics should see a direct connection between birthright citizenship and invasion. Birthright citizenship is supported by various Supreme Court opinions, both unanimous and separate opinions involving Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and others. But birthright citizenship obviously doesn’t apply in case of war or invasion. No one to my knowledge has ever argued that the children of invading aliens are entitled to birthright citizenship. And I can’t imagine what the legal argument for that would be. It’s like the debate over unlawful combatants after 9/11. Everyone agrees that birthright citizenship doesn’t apply to the children of lawful combatants. And it’s hard to see anyone arguing that unlawful combatants should be treated more favorably than lawful combatants.

Judge Ho has written thoughtfully on the birthright citizenship issue from an originalist perspective (see here), and I generally agree with him (see my article Originalism and Birthright Citizenship), so I hesitate to disagree — but I will, nonetheless.

The citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not say anything directly about invasion. It gives constitutional citizenship to all person “born … in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The invasion issue arises from a longstanding rule in English law holding that invading armies were an exception to the general rule that people born in English territory were English subjects, because English sovereign authority could not operate in areas held by a hostile force. Thus the U.S. constitutional rule, derived for the English rule, would also not seem to apply to hostile armies within U.S. territory. That is, a person born under the control of a hostile army in U.S. territory was “born … In the United States” but not, as a practical matter, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It was not the fact of being an invader that made the citizenship clause inapplicable, but rather the fact of the U.S. not being able to exercise jurisdiction over a hostile army.

Applied to the situation of illegal immigration, it follows that the question is not whether the current situation at the southern border is an “invasion” within the meaning of Article I, Section 10 (which allows states to respond with warlike measures if “actually invaded”). Judge Ho has argued that the current situation is akin to an invasion, as have Andrew Hyman and Rob Natelson here. Even assuming they are right, that’s not determinative of the citizenship question. The citizenship question is whether the children of persons present in the United States illegally are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

In this respect, children of persons present in the United States illegally are different from persons born subject to the control of a hostile army. The United States can and does exercise jurisdiction over the former, while it cannot, as a practical matter, exercise jurisdiction over the latter. And under the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, that is a critical difference. Thus in my view characterization of the situation at the southern border as an invasion does not affect the the citizenship issue, which is about jurisdiction, not invasion.

NOTE: This post was originally published at The Originalism Blog, “The Blog of the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism at the University of San Diego School of Law,” and is reposted here with permission from the author.

The post Invasion and Birthright Citizenship first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Feds Kick off Fiscal 2025 With Another Big Deficit

Mike Maharrey — Mon, 18 Nov 2024 04:46:10 +0000

After running the third-largest budget deficit in history in fiscal 2024, the federal government kicked off fiscal 2025 with more of the same.

The federal government ran a $257.45 billion budget shortfall to start the new fiscal year, with revenue down and spending up, according to the latest statement from the Department of Treasury.

That was a 287 percent increase over the October 2023 deficit.

Federal receipts came in at $326.77 billion. That was down about 19 percent compared to October 2023. A one-time influx of tax payments deferred due to wildfires last year boosted October 2023 revenues.

As has been the case for months, the big problem is on the spending side of the ledger.

The Biden administration blew through $584.22 billion last month. That was a 24 percent year-on-year increase. Outlays for Social Security, Medicare, and national defense all increased.

You might recall that President Biden promised that the [pretend] spending cuts would save “hundreds of billions” with the debt ceiling deal (aka the [misnamed] Fiscal Responsibility Act).

That never happened.

The federal government continues to find new reasons to spend money, whether for natural disasters at home or wars overseas. The Biden administration spent a staggering $6.75 trillion in fiscal 2024, a 10 percent increase over 2023 outlays.

If history is any indication, things won’t get much better with Trump in the White House and the GOP controlling Congress. The first Trump administration was among the biggest debtors in history.

The federal government spent $82 billion on interest expenses last month. That was a modest 8 percent decline, the first annual drop in interest expense since August 2023. The Treasury Department said the decline was driven by a $12 billion reduction in payouts for inflation-protected securities thanks to a lower CPI.

Net interest expense came in at $80 billion. That was a $4 billion increase over October 2023.

Uncle Sam paid $1.13 trillion in interest expense in fiscal 2023. It was the first time interest expense has ever eclipsed $1 trillion.

Interest payments were up 28.6 percent over fiscal 2023 levels.

Don’t let the small decline in interest expense last month fool you. The general trend remains upward. Even with the recent Federal Reserve rate cuts, Treasury yields are pushing upward as demand for U.S. debt sags. Since Trump’s electoral victory, the yield on the 10-year Treasury is up 15 basis points.

Much of the debt currently on the books was financed at very low rates before the Federal Reserve started its hiking cycle. Every month, some of that super-low-yielding paper matures and has to be replaced by bonds yielding much higher rates.

IMPACT OF THE DEBT

We see these big deficits month after month, but most people don’t bat an eye. There seems to be a sense that spending more than you take in month after month isn’t really a problem.

But anybody who says “deficits don’t matter” is deluded.

As the Bipartisan Policy Center pointed out, the growing national debt and the mounting fiscal irresponsibility undermine the dollar.

“Confidence in U.S. creditworthiness may be undermined by a rapidly deteriorating fiscal situation, an increasing concern with federal debt set to grow substantially in the coming years.”

This could lead to lower economic growth, higher unemployment, and less investment wealth.

Lack of confidence in the U.S. fiscal situation could also lower demand for U.S. debt. This would force interest rates on U.S. Treasuries even higher to attract investors, exacerbating the interest payment problem.

The national debt continues to spiral upward at a dizzying pace. It will officially top $36 trillion within days. According to the national debt clock, that represents 122.85 percent of GDP. Studies have shown a debt-to-GDP ratio of over 90 percent retards economic growth by about 30 percent.

The debt will likely be one of the biggest problems facing President Trump as he takes the reins of power. With Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress and the White House, there is an opportunity to tackle the spending problem, but whether the GOP has the political will to make substantial cuts remains to be seen.

Money Metals contributed to this report.

The post Feds Kick off Fiscal 2025 With Another Big Deficit first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Cabinet Picks Clash: Washington’s Team and America’s First 2-Party System

Michael Boldin — Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:54:50 +0000

“I would wish the debt paid tomorrow; he wishes it never to be paid, but always to be a thing wherewith to corrupt and manage the legislature.” This slapback from Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson was aimed squarely at Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. These two – along with Edmund Randolph and Henry Knox – made up Washington’s first cabinet, a group filled with some major ideological clashes. In this episode, we’ll explore how their divisive views on issues like the national debt and a national bank created a rift so deep it helped give rise to America’s first two-party system.

Path to Liberty: November 15, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to George Washington (9 Sept 1792)

National Archives: The Anecdotes

The complete anas of Thomas Jefferson

Constitution: Article II, Section 2

James Madison – Resolution (19 May 1789)

James Madison – Letter to Thomas Jefferson (27 May 1789)

List of secretaries of state of the United States

John Jay – Letter to Gouverneur Morris (24 Sept 1783)

John Jay – Charge to Grandy Jury, Richmond Virginia

Lehrman Institute – Founding Economists

Mount Vernon – Department of the Treasury

George Washington to the United States Senate (11 Sept 1789)

Alexander Hamilton – Unsubmitted Resolution Calling for a Convention to Amend the Articles of Confederation (July 1783)

Alexander Hamilton – Letter to to Robert Morris (30 Apr 1781)

Henry Knox – Letter to George Washington, Plan for the Arrangement of the Militia (18 Jan 1790)

Henry Knox – Report on Indian Affairs (29 Dec 1794)

George Washington to the United States Senate (25 Sept 1789)

Edmund Randolph’s Opinion on Recess Appointments (7 July 1792)

Maharrey – Edmund Randolph vs the National Bank

Episode – The Constitution vs the National Bank: Edmund Randolph’s Analysis

Thomas Jefferson – First Inaugural (4 Mar 1801)

Thomas Jefferson – Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank

Episode – Thomas Jefferson: The Constitution vs the National Bank

Mount Vernon – Jefferson and Hamilton: Political Rivals in Washington’s Cabinet

George Washington – Letter to Thomas Jefferson (23 Aug 1792)

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 Cabinet Picks Clash: Washington’s Team and America’s First 2-Party System first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Most Underrated and Ignored Founder: John Dickinson, Penman of the Revolution

Michael Boldin — Wed, 13 Nov 2024 21:47:32 +0000

“We cannot be happy without being FREE.” Those words come from John Dickinson, who saw LIBERTY as the foundation of everything else. Once almost as famous as Benjamin Franklin, Dickinson is almost totally forgotten today. Known as the “Penman of the Revolution,” he was a fierce defender of natural rights, the father of the Articles of Confederation, a leading opponent of the Stamp Act, a supporter of the Constitution, and much more. To honor his birthday, we’re diving into the life and legacy of one of America’s most underrated and ignored founding fathers.

Path to Liberty: November 13, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania No. 12 (1767)

Delaware Historical and Cultural Affairs

Natelson – The Founders and the Constitution: John Dickinson

Forrest McDonald – John Dickinson: The Most Underrated Founder?

Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms (6 July 1775)

Episode – Forgotten Declaration: Cause of the War for Independence Explained

Resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress: Declaration of Rights and Grievances (19 Oct 1765)

Jane Calvert – John Dickinson Biography

Broadside Against the Stamp Act (Nov 1765)

Maharrey – John Dickinson Put His Money Where His Mouth Was

Episode – Articles of Confederation: An Introduction

Fabius IV (19 Apr 1788)

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to Joseph Bringhurst (24 Feb 1808)

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 Underrated and Ignored Founder: John Dickinson, Penman of the Revolution first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

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

Michael Boldin — Mon, 11 Nov 2024 20:00:26 +0000

“A nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” That’s how Thomas Jefferson put it in his draft Resolutions against the Alien and Sedition Acts. On November 10, 1798, the Kentucky legislature passed resolutions based on his principles. They not only reaffirmed the Constitution’s structure a strict line between delegated and reserved powers, but also laid out how to defend it against violations of the constitution by the federal government.

Path to Liberty: November 11, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Derek Sheriff: Thomas Jefferson’s Other Declaration

Wiki: November 10

Maharrey – Today in History: Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 Passed

James Madison – Letter to Thomas Jefferson (13 May 1798)

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to James Madison (7 June 1798)

James Madison – Letter to Thomas Jefferson (10 June 1798)

Alien and Sedition Acts – Full Text

Kevin Gutzman – 1800, Thomas Jefferson Defeats John Adams

Sedition Act (14 July 1798)

Episode – Forgotten 1774 Declaration: Precursor to Independence and Bill of Rights

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to James Madison (3 Nov 1798)

Episode – Elected from Prison: Matthew Lyon

Thomas Jefferson – Kentucky Resolutions, Fair Copy (Before 4 Oct 1798)

Wilson Cary Nicholas – Letter to Thomas Jefferson (4 Oct 1798)

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to Wilson Cary Nicholas (5 Oct 1798)

Kentucky Resolutions (10 Nov 1798)

Maharrey – The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 Were All About Nullification

National Archives – Editorial Note: The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

Episode – Jefferson: Top-5 Principles from the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to James Madison (17 Nov 1798)

Kentucky Resolutions of 1799 (3 Dec 1799)

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 Nullify: Thomas Jefferson’s Radical Declaration They Want You to Ignore first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

President OATH to the CONSTITUTION: 5 Steps to Protect and Defend NOW

Michael Boldin — Fri, 08 Nov 2024 20:17:11 +0000

It’s time to walk the walk. Right now, the Constitution is treated as little more than an optional guide – at best. Or toilet paper. In this episode, learn the top-5 most crucial steps an oath-keeping president should take to radically protect and defend the Constitution – starting now.

Path to Liberty: November 8, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

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

Episode – Oath to the Constitution: Ignored and Betrayed Daily at the Cost of Liberty

5. REDUCE DEBT

Brutus VIII (10 Jan 1788)

George Washington – Fifth Annual Message to Congress (3 Dec 1793)

4. CULTIVATE PEACE

George Washington – Farewell Address (19 Sept 1796)

Thomas Jefferson – First Inaugural (4 Mar 1801)

Episode – No Permanent Alliances: Foreign Policy of Washington and Jefferson

3. VETO EVERYTHING

First Veto – George Washington to the United States House of Representatives (5 Apr 1792)

Episode – Most Important (and Ignored) Veto in History: James Madison’s Last Stand

2. REFUSE TO ENFORCE

James Madison to Unknown (Dec. 1834)

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to Spencer Roane (6 Sept 1819)

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to Abigail Adams (22 July 1804)

1. PARDON EN MASSE

Alexander Hamilton – Federalist 74 (25 Mar 1788)

George Washington – Proclamation of Pardons in Western Pennsylvania (10 July 1795)

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 President OATH to the CONSTITUTION: 5 Steps to Protect and Defend NOW first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

You Can’t COMPLY Your Way Out of TYRANNY: The Forgotten Foundation

Michael Boldin — Wed, 06 Nov 2024 19:42:09 +0000

This principle – central to the American Revolution – has been almost totally forgotten and ignored. On this episode, we’re uncovering powerful warnings from leading Founders and Old Revolutionaries about the dangers of compliance with usurpations of power. And a century later, the radical Lysander Spooner took up the same cause, fiercely defending these principles of resistance to defend liberty. These are lessons we can’t afford to ignore any longer.

Path to Liberty: November 6, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Oliver Ellsworth – Connecticut Ratifying Convention (7 Jan 1788)

James Otis, Jr – Speech Against the Writs of Assistance (24 Feb 1761)

Lysander Spooner – A Defense for Fugitive Slaves (1850)

John Dickinson – Broadside Against the Stamp Act (Nov 1765)

John Dickinson – Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania No. XI (1767)

Thomas Paine – Rights of Man, Part 2 (1792)

Lysander Spooner – An Essay on the Trial by Jury (1852)

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

George Washington Farewell Address (19 Sept 1796)

Thomas Jefferson – Kentucky Resolutions (10 Nov 1798)

Alexander Hamilton – Federalist 33 (3 Jan 1788)

James Iredell – North Carolina Ratifying Convention (28 July 1788)

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

Lysander Spooner – No Treason VI (1870)

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 You Can’t COMPLY Your Way Out of TYRANNY: The Forgotten Foundation first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Nebraska Voters Legalize Medical Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 06 Nov 2024 17:04:41 +0000

LINCOLN, Neb. (Nov. 6, 2024) Nebraska became the 39th state to legalize medical marijuana, despite ongoing cannabis prohibition, with the easy passage of two ballot measures on Tuesday

Nebraska voters passed Initiative 437 by a 71-29 percent margin, adopting the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Patient Protection Act. The law authorizes qualified patients to use, possess, and acquire up to five ounces of marijuana to alleviate or treat a medical condition or its symptoms. Qualified patients are individuals 18 years or older with a written recommendation from a healthcare practitioner or a patient younger than 18 years of age with a written recommendation from a healthcare practitioner along with written consent from a parent or guardian. The law also authorizes caregivers to assist a qualified patient in possessing the allowable amount and marijuana accessories on behalf of the qualified patient.

Voters also approved Initiative 438 by a 70-33 percent margin. The measure repeals penalties for the possession, manufacture, distribution, delivery, and dispensing of marijuana for medical purposes and establishes the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission to regulate the medical marijuana industry in the state.

EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION

Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains a complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.

The legalization of medical marijuana removes one layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana in the state even though federal prohibition remains in effect. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.

Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.

The post Nebraska Voters Legalize Medical Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Oath to the Constitution: Ignored and Betrayed Daily at the Cost of Liberty

Michael Boldin — Mon, 04 Nov 2024 19:42:45 +0000

“If their duty, their honor, and their oaths will not bind them, let us not put into their hands our liberty, and all our other great interests.” Those are the words of Gouverneur Morris, the “penman of the Constitution.” Today, despite that warning – politicians ignore that oath every day – and the people keep letting them get away with it. The price is our liberty.

Path to Liberty: November 4, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Constitution – Oath president – Article II, Sec 1, Cl. 8

Constitution – Oath for everyone else – Article VI, Cl. 3

Current Oath of Senate

The Oath of Office: The First Act of the First Congress

Oliver Wolcott – Connecticut Ratifying Convention (9 Jan 1788)

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

Natelson – The Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause

Gouverneur Morris – Philadelphia Convention (11 July 1787)

Moses Mather – America’s Appeal To The Impartial World (1775)

Wiki: Option of Affirmation

An Ordinance for Establishing a General Test Oath (19 Aug 1775)

An Act Repealing Duties Laid Upon Distilled Spirits Imported (9 Jan 1790)

John Smilie – Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention (8 Dec 1787)

Luther Martin – Philadelphia Convention (11 June 1787)

William Findley – Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention (1 Dec 1787)

Brutus II (1 Nov 1787)

Melancton Smith – New York Ratifying Convention (7 July 1788)

James Wilson – Philadelphia Convention (23 July 1787)

Edmund Pendleton – Letter to James Madison (8 Oct 1787)

James Madison – Letter to Edmund Pendleton (28 Oct 1787)

Edmund Randolph – Virginia Ratifying Convention (10 June 1788)

Archibald Maclaine – North Carolina Ratifying Convention (28 July 1788)

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

Lysander Spooner: No Treason VI (1870)

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 Oath to the Constitution: Ignored and Betrayed Daily at the Cost of Liberty first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

REFUSE TO COMPLY: How the Stamp Act Was Nullified

Michael Boldin — Fri, 01 Nov 2024 18:40:57 +0000

Refuse to comply. That’s exactly what the people did to bring down the Stamp Act once it went into effect on November 1, 1765. We’ve all heard about the fiery protests and the bold resistance, but there was so much more to the story. On this episode, learn their hidden strategies of defiance – the methods they used that government-run schools never talk about. These are the same strategies the founders told us to use to nullify unconstitutional acts today.

Path to Liberty: November 1, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

History.com – Stamp Act goes into effect in the American colonies

Episode – Patrick Henry vs the Stamp Act

Patrick Henry’s Resolutions Against the Stamp Act

Cyrus Baldwin – Letter to Loammi Baldwin (15 Aug 1765)

Repudiation of the Stamp Act

Maharrey – Colonial Nullification: A Maryland County Court’s Repudiation of the Stamp Act

Murray Rothbard – Ignoring the Stamp Act

Rhode Island Stamp Act Resolves (15 Sept 1765)

Journal of the American Revolution: The Tombstone Edition

John Dickinson – Broadside Against the Stamp Act (Nov 1765)

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 REFUSE TO COMPLY: How the Stamp Act Was Nullified first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Repeal the 17th Amendment: Ignored Anti-Federalist Warnings on the Senate

Michael Boldin — Wed, 30 Oct 2024 19:35:31 +0000

Repealing the 17th Amendment is the right move to help restore federalism – but is it enough? The Anti-Federalists warned us about dangers in the Senate’s structure long before the 17th came along, and without understanding those warnings, we could still end up with the same problems: corruption, power grabs, and more centralized control.

Path to Liberty: October 30, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

17th Amendment: How it Broke the Safeguard Against Consolidation

James Madison – Virginia Ratifying Convention (5 June 1788)

Gov. Johnston – North Carolina Ratification Debates (25 July 1788)

John Jay – Federalist 64 (7 Mar 1788)

James Madison – Virginia Ratifying Convention (6 June 1788)

Episode – 17th Amendment: Did it Destroy the Structure of the Constitution?

Natelson – Understanding the Constitution: The 17th amendment and direct election of Senators

Natelson – Repeal the 17th: Problems to Address

Articles of Confederation – Article V

Patrick Henry – Virginia Ratifying Convention (12 June 1788)

Federal Farmer X (7 Jan 1788)

George Mason – Virginia Ratifying Convention (16 June 1788)

Episode – 17th Amendment Myth Busted: There was no Recall Power

Col William Jones – Massachusetts Ratifying Convention (19 Jan 1788)

Mercy Otis Warren – Observations on the New Constitution (1788)

Melancton Smith – New York Ratifying Convention (25 June 1788)

Center for the Study of the American Constitution: The Debate over the Senate

Cincinnatus IV (22 Nov 1787)

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

Centinel II (24 Oct 1787)

George Mason – Virginia Ratifying Convention (13 June 1788)

Luther Martin – Genuine Information IV (8 Jan 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 Repeal the 17th Amendment: Ignored Anti-Federalist Warnings on the Senate first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Most Important (and Ignored) Veto in History: James Madison’s Last Stand

Michael Boldin — Fri, 25 Oct 2024 18:17:45 +0000

On his very last day in office, James Madison shocked Congress by vetoing an infrastructure bill – even though he supported the idea behind it. Madison refused to sign off on the measure, saying it didn’t follow the strict limits of the Constitution, even if it aligned with his own political goals. This might be the most important – and most ignored – veto in history.

Path to Liberty: October 25, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

George Washington – Farewell Address (19 Sept 1796)

Postal Road Survey (5 Feb 1796)

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to James Madison (6 March 1796)

James Madison – Letter to Thomas Jefferson (4 Apr 1796)

James Madison – Letter to Reynolds Chapman (6 Jan 1831)

James Madison – 7th Annual Message to Congress (5 Dec 1815)

James Madison – 8th Annual Message to Congress (3 Dec 1816)

Adam White – Infrastructure Policy: Lessons from American History

John C. Calhoun – Argument for Internal Improvements

Drew McCoy – The Last of the Fathers

Henry Clay – Letter to James Madison (3 Mar 1817)

Dave Benner – James Madison Vetoes Infrastructure Bill as Unconstitutional

James Madison – Veto Message (3 Mar 1817)

James Madison – Letter to James Monroe (27 Dec 1817)

James Madison – Letter to Nicholas P. Trist (1 Dec 1831)

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 (and Ignored) Veto in History: James Madison’s Last Stand first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Articles of Confederation vs Constitution: 6 Key Differences You Need to Know

Michael Boldin — Wed, 23 Oct 2024 20:16:30 +0000

A deep dive into six key differences that demonstrate how the Articles were much closer to a pure system of federalism than the Constitution for the United States. We’ll cover topics like representation, the executive branch, the taxing power – and more.

Path to Liberty: October 23, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

James Madison – Federalist 40 (18 Jan 1788)

James Madison – Letter to Edmund Pendleton (21 Jan 1792)

Articles of Confederation

Constitution for the United States

Episode – Tax Battle! Henry vs Hamilton on the Requisition System

The Bill of Rights

Episode – Benjamin Franklin’s Articles of Confederation

Lee Resolution (2 July 1776)

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 Articles of Confederation vs Constitution: 6 Key Differences You Need to Know first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Feds Run Third-Largest National Debt Ever as Interest Payments Eclipse $1 Trillion

Mike Maharrey — Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:27:31 +0000

In one of the biggest economic stories of the year that nobody seems to care about, the Biden administration ran the third-largest budget deficit in history in fiscal 2024 and paid over $1 trillion just on interest payments on the debt.

This is the kind of borrowing and spending one would expect during an economic crisis. The only bigger annual budget deficits both occurred during the COVID lockdown era. Before that, the Obama administration ran the only trillion dollar-plus deficits during the Great Recession. (The Trump administration was on pace for a trillion-dollar-plus deficit in fiscal 2020 before the pandemic.)

And yet here we are, in what is supposed to be a “robust” economy, with a crisis-like budget deficit.

Perhaps the “robust” economy is an illusion created by the government deficit spending.

THE NUMBERS

According to the final Monthly Treasury Statement of fiscal 2024, the federal government spent $1.83 trillion more than it took in.

The budget deficit was 8 percent higher than the 2023 shortfall.

The budget gap represents 6.4 percent of GDP, up from 6.2 percent in fiscal 2023.

Democrats love to blame the deficit on “tax cuts for the rich,” but the rhetoric doesn’t match reality.

Federal tax receipts came in at a record of $4.92 trillion, an 11 percent increase over fiscal 2023.

The real problem is on the spending side of the ledger.

Remember how the Biden administration promised that the [pretend] spending cuts would save “hundreds of billions” with the debt ceiling deal (aka the [misnamed] Fiscal Responsibility Act)?

That never happened.

The Biden administration blew through $6.75 trillion in fiscal 2024, a 10 percent increase over 2023 spending.

Here are just a few examples of spending increases:

Social Security spending was up 7 percent
Medicare spending was up 4 percent
Military program outlays increased by 6 percent

This tells you everything you need to know about government promises of spending cuts. Government people always find new reasons to spend money even as they pontificate about fiscal responsibility. Whether it’s a domestic crisis or a war, government spends more and more. This is why the deficits continue to expand – not because of some imagined lack of sufficient revenue.

And it’s not just Democrats spending like drunken sailors (with apologies to all the drunken sailors out there).

Prior to the pandemic, the U.S. government ran budget deficits of over $1 trillion just four times — all by the Obama administration in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

But the Trump administration almost hit the $1 trillion mark in 2019 and was on pace to run a trillion-dollar deficit in fiscal 2020 before the pandemic, even as the U.S. supposedly enjoyed the “best economy” ever. The economic catastrophe caused by the government’s response to COVID-19 gave policymakers an excuse to spend with no questions asked, and we saw record deficits in fiscal 2020 and 2021.

This reveals the ugly truth: borrowing and spending is a bipartisan sport.

THE INTEREST PROBLEM

Uncle Sam paid $1.13 trillion in interest expense in fiscal 2023. It was the first time interest expense has ever eclipsed $1 trillion.

Interest payments were up 28.6 percent over fiscal 2023 levels.

The U.S. government paid more in interest than it did for national defense ($882 billion) or Medicare ($874 billion). The only spending category larger than interest on the debt was Social Security ($1.46 trillion.)

Net interest expense factoring interest earned by the Treasury was $882 billion, sill more than national defense.

And interest expenses will only continue to climb.

Even with the recent Federal Reserve rate cut, interest rates remain elevated.

THE NATIONAL DEBT MATTERS

Anybody who says “deficits don’t matter” is deluded.

As the Bipartisan Policy Center points out, the growing national debt and the mounting fiscal irresponsibility undermine the dollar.

“Confidence in U.S. creditworthiness may be undermined by a rapidly deteriorating fiscal situation, an increasing concern with federal debt set to grow substantially in the coming years.”

This could lead to lower economic growth, higher unemployment, and less investment wealth.

The national debt continues to spiral upward at a dizzying pace. It currently stands at over $35.7 trillion. According to the national debt clock, that represents 122.28 percent of GDP. Studies have shown a debt-to-GDP ratio of over 90 percent retards economic growth by about 30 percent.

And yet, virtually nobody in Washington D.C. has a plan to address the budget shortfalls or the growing national debt. Sure, federal officials will pay lip service to trim spending, but substantive spending cuts never materialize. Meanwhile, Democrats promise to raise taxes on the rich, a policy that plays well to its base but wouldn’t make a substantive debt in the budget shortfall.

Ultimately, the borrowing and spending issue is nothing more than a political hot potato that makes headlines every time Congress runs up against the debt ceiling.

The Bipartisan Policy Center warns, “Regular brinkmanship over addressing the federal debt limit—a symptom of broader fiscal dysfunction and mismanagement—could have a catastrophic impact on the U.S. credit rating, the dollar’s role, and U.S. global leadership.”

It’s almost certain that neither Congress nor the next occupant of the Oval Office will do anything substantive to address this fiscal trainwreck. Instead, they will continue to kick the can down the road.

It’s a great political strategy because nobody wants spending cuts or tax hikes. The problem is, eventually, they will run out of road.

The post Feds Run Third-Largest National Debt Ever as Interest Payments Eclipse $1 Trillion first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Patrick Henry vs the Constitution: Ignored Anti-Federalist Warnings

Michael Boldin — Fri, 18 Oct 2024 19:41:27 +0000

This government “will swallow the liberties of the people, without giving them previous notice.” That’s the stark warning Patrick Henry gave us in 1788. In a series of fiery speeches, he laid out some of the most powerful anti-Federalist arguments against the Constitution—predicting all kinds of abuses of power and the eventual destruction of liberty. In this episode, we’re breaking down six categories of his most urgent warnings, each filled with powerful quotes we can’t afford to ignore any longer.

Path to Liberty: October 18, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Patrick Henry – Letter to George Washington (19 Oct 1787)

Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention (7 June 1788)

Virginia Ratifying Convention (9 June 1788)

Virginia Ratifying Convention (5 June 1788)

Virginia Ratifying Convention (17 June 1788)

Articles of Confederation

Virginia Ratifying Convention (16 June 1788)

Virginia Ratifying Convention (7 June 1788)

Episode – Bill of Rights: 5 Hidden Truths They Never Teach

Henry Lee – Letter to James Madison (19 Nov 1788)

Patrick Henry – Letter to Richard Henry Lee (28 Aug 1789)

Virginia Ratifying Convention (13 June 1788)

Virginia Ratifying Convention (4 June 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 Patrick Henry vs the Constitution: Ignored Anti-Federalist Warnings first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Boston Tea Party? It Actually Started in Philadelphia!

Michael Boldin — Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:02:03 +0000

“The active business of the American Revolution began in Philadelphia.” That’s what Benjamin Rush and John Adams believed – because the spark that ignited the Boston Tea Party wasn’t in Boston. It was lit in Philadelphia on October 16, 1773. This forgotten piece of history involves fiery protests, bold resolutions, and even letters from the Committee on Tarring and Feathering.

Path to Liberty: October 16, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Maharrey – Before Boston: The Tea Revolt That Began in Philadelphia

History.com – British parliament passes unpopular Tea Act

Benjamin Franklin – Letter to Thomas Cushing (4 June 1773)

Thomas Cushing – Letter to Benjamin Franklin (10 Dec 1773)

Scaevola – By Uniting We Stand – By Dividing We Fall (11 Oct 1773)

The Philadelphia Resolutions (16 Oct 1773)

Samuel Adams – Resolutions of the Town of Boston (5 Nov 1773)

Plymouth Resolutions Against the Tea Act (7 Dec 1773)

To the Delaware Pilots and Capt. Ayers (27 Nov 1773)

Philadelphia – Town Resolutions (27 Dec 1773)

Samuel Cooper – Letter to Benjamin Franklin (17 Dec 1773)

Benjamin Rush – Letter to John Adams (14 Aug 1809)

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 Boston Tea Party? It Actually Started in Philadelphia! first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Forgotten 1774 Declaration: Precursor to Independence and Bill of Rights

Michael Boldin — Mon, 14 Oct 2024 19:44:30 +0000

“To these grievous measures, Americans cannot submit.” That’s the bold declaration that helped spark a coordinated resistance across the colonies in 1774. On this episode, commemorating the 250th anniversary of the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress, we’ll dive into what turned out to be not only a precursor to the Declaration of Independence, but the bill of rights too.

Path to Liberty: October 14, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Join or Die T-Shirt

Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress (14 Oct 1774)

History.com – Parliament passes the Boston Port Act

Mount Vernon – The Coercive (Intolerable) Acts of 1774

The Port Bill Received at Boston

New York Committee of Fifty-One to the Boston Committee of Correspondence (23 May 1774)

John Jay – Letter to John Vardill (23 May 1774)

Joseph Hawley – Letter to John Adams (25 July 1774)

Thomas Jefferson – A Summary View of the Rights of British America

Episode – Null and Void: Thomas Jefferson’s 1774 Radical Declaration

Joseph Hawley – Broken Hints, Letter to John Adams (Aug 1774)

John Adams – Letter to William Wirt (23 Jan 1818)

John Adams, Diary (5 Sept 1774)

John Adams – Letter to Abigail Adams (16 Sept 1774)

John Adams, Diary (6 Sept 1774)

Notes of Debates in the Continental Congress (6 Sept 1774)

Episode – It was Gun Control: The Powder Alarm and the Road to Independence

Carpenter’s Hall – First Continental Congress

Episode – Blueprint for Liberty: The Suffolk Resolves of 1774

John Adams Diary (17 Sept 1774)

Episode – First of the Founding Four: Continental Association

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 1774 Declaration: Precursor to Independence and Bill of Rights first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Cato vs the Constitution: Forgotten Anti-Federalist Arguments

Michael Boldin — Fri, 11 Oct 2024 18:31:21 +0000

“A vile and arbitrary aristocracy or monarchy” – that’s what the Anti-Federalist writer Cato warned we’d get. In a series of seven essays, he laid out his strongest arguments against ratification of the Constitution, predicting all kinds of abuses of power, and the destruction of liberty. In this episode, we’ll break down his forgotten warnings – which just might be more important than ever today.

Path to Liberty: October 11, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Jason Mandresh – Founder of the Day – Cato I

Federalist and Antifederalist: The Origin of the Terms

Cato I (27 Sept 1787)

Caesar I (1 Oct 1787)

Cato II (11 Oct 1787)

Episode – Myth Busted! Virginia, Not Congress, Called for the Philadelphia Convention

Cato III (25 Oct 1787)

Cato IV (8 Nov 1787)

Cato V (22 Nov 1787)

Episode – Oppress and Plunder: Antifederalist Brutus No. 3

Cato VI (13 Dec 1787)

Cato VII (3 Jan 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 Cato vs the Constitution: Forgotten Anti-Federalist Arguments first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Sound Money Fellowship Available to Support Sound Money Research

Jp Cortez — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 21:53:53 +0000

The Sound Money Defense League and Money Metals Exchange have announced the inaugural Sound Money Fellowship—a new program designed to foster advanced research in the field of sound money.

The two groups have set aside more than 100 ounces of physical gold (currently valued at approximately $260,000) to reward deserving students and researchers advancing original sound money analyses.

Building on the overwhelming popularity of the nation’s first gold-backed annual Sound Money Scholarship, the Sound Money Fellowship is open to graduate students, post-graduate students, and independent researchers.

The fellowship seeks to advance scholarship pertaining to sound money by encouraging in-depth exploration of monetary history, policy analysis, and comparative studies.

Each selected Sound Money Fellow will receive a stipend of $3,000 and will write three articles for publication (750-1000 words) as well as a research paper during a six-month period.

The writings and research of Sound Money Fellows will be featured on both the Sound Money Defense League and Money Metals’ websites, as well as in the prestigious Sound Money Review, an annual publication that highlights the contributions of our fellows while serving as a valuable resource for academics, policymakers, and the public.

“After almost a decade of receiving hundreds of thoughtful essays on sound money from students all over the world through our Sound Money Scholarship program, we are excited to expand our overall support and thought leadership through the Sound Money Fellowship,” Sound Money Defense League Executive Director Jp Cortez said.

“Money Metals is excited to augment its efforts to cultivate the next generation of thought leaders as they make meaningful contributions to the discourse surrounding the monetary future of America, and the world,” Money Metals president Stefan Gleason said.

The application period for the 2025 Sound Money Fellowship is now open, with a deadline of December 31, 2024. For more information on the fellowship and how to apply, please visit www.moneymetals.com/fellowship or email fellowship@moneymetals.com.

The post Sound Money Fellowship Available to Support Sound Money Research first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Jury Nullification: The People’s Secret Weapon Against Tyranny

Michael Boldin — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 19:34:20 +0000

Thomas Jefferson called the trial by jury as the only anchor ever imagined by man that can hold a government to the constitution. And jury nullification is how to get that done. In this episode, learn what it is, the history behind it and how it works. Plenty from the founders and old revolutionaries all the way to Lysander Spooner.

Path to Liberty: October 9, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Fully Informed Jury Association – What is Jury Nullification

John Jay – The State of Georgia v. Brailsford, et al. (1794)

Thomas Jefferson – Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-82)

Elbridge Gerry – Philadelphia Convention (12 Sept 1787)

William Findley – Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention (8 Dec 1787)

Declaration of Independence

Clay S. Conrad – Trial by Jury

Blackstone – Commentaries on the Laws of England Book 3 (1765-69)

Brittany Hunter – Pacific Legal Foundation

Blackstone – Commentaries Book II – Chapter 23 – Of the Trial by Jury

Lysander Spooner, An Essay on the Trial by Jury (1852)

George Mason – Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

Theophilus Parsons – Massachusetts Ratifying Convention (23 Jan 1788)

Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine (11 July 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 Jury Nullification: The People’s Secret Weapon Against Tyranny first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

American Neocons Get Their Iran War as Congress Sleeps

Ron Paul — Mon, 07 Oct 2024 17:20:44 +0000

Over the weekend, the Commander of the US Central Command (CENTCOM), General Michael Kurilla, arrived in Israel to “coordinate” with the Israeli military and plan a military strike against Iran. Think about that for a moment: one of the highest-ranking officers in the US military is planning a war in a foreign country against another foreign country which will be fueled by American weapons, American intelligence, and American tax dollars.

Did that foreign country – Iran – attack the United States or threaten Americans? No, it did not. What did Iran do to warrant a CENTCOM commander bringing the weight of the US military into play to plan a war – possibly WWIII? It retaliated against Israeli airstrikes including the assignation of a Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, in Tehran.

It was the Israeli missile attack on Tehran – an unprecedented event – that set off this chain of escalation, but few would know if from media coverage. This war fever between Israel and Iran not only has nothing to do with us, but our increasing involvement actually hurts our national interests in the region.

After a deadly and futile three-year proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, the last thing we need is another war in the Middle East, especially against Iran. But make no mistake, war is what we are getting. This Administration has even offered to “compensate” Israel with even more weapons and diplomatic support if they hit targets of the US choosing and avoid others in Iran.

Imagine if China sent military officials to Iran to pay Tehran to make sure some US targets were struck and others avoided. Would we consider it Iran’s war against us, or China’s war against us? Both?

Has Congress declared war on Iran or even authorized the war? No. Has this Administration explained to us why Americans suffering after the catastrophic Hurricane Helene are on their own because we need to spend billions on a war that is none of our business? No. The neocons have wanted this war for decades and for them it’s always America last.

This war will make us less free, less safe, and much poorer. There will be no benefits at all, only downside.

Will the Biden/Harris Administration greenlight Israel taking out Iran’s oil production and other energy facilities? That would mean the average American already suffering under high inflation and an economic downturn would be paying orders of magnitude higher for not just gasoline, but everything. Consider the cost of shipping and trucking and every aspect of our lives that depends on world energy prices. It would be an economic calamity for Americans for the benefit of a foreign country. This is what they call patriotism?

We are sleepwalking into a catastrophic war, lulled into compliance by non-stop media propaganda. More billions will be drained from our economy and many more innocent lives will be lost in this madness. Almost a quarter of a century later we still have not learned the lessons of 9/11. When we go abroad wreaking havoc and destruction on foreign populations who have not harmed us we create enemies who will seek revenge. We harm ourselves. And we risk blowback. The time to oppose this impending war is NOW!

The post American Neocons Get Their Iran War as Congress Sleeps first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

How the New York Bill of Rights Helped Lead to the U.S. Bill of Rights

Rob Natelson — Sat, 05 Oct 2024 18:12:04 +0000

When Congressman James Madison drafted a proposed bill of rights in the First Federal Congress of 1789, he did not write on a blank slate. He took into account historic Anglo-American constitutional documents, such as Magna Carta (1215) and the English Bill of Rights (1789). But he paid particular attention to another set of sources: the recommendations for constitutional amendments issued by state conventions that ratified the Constitution -particularly those in Virginia and New York.

New York’s recommended amendments were extensive, and authored principally by John Lansing, Jr. (1754-1829).

Lansing was a distinguished New York lawyer and a member of the state legislature. Later in his career, he became New York’s Chief Justice and, subsequently, Chancellor—the most important legal position in the state.

Lansing was a New York delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. However, New York was one of only two states that limited their delegates’ authority to amending the Articles of Confederation. In a Dec. 21, 1787 explanatory letter to the governor, Lansing and his fellow delegate Robert Yates explained that because proposing an entirely new Constitution was outside their authority, they left the convention early. They also did not think a unified republican central government was practical. Their colleague, Alexander Hamilton, remained in Philadelphia, but in a private capacity.

In early May, 1788, Lansing was elected to the state convention that would decide whether to ratify the proposed Constitution. At the gathering, he became one of the leaders of the opposition. Eventually, however, he helped broker the deal by which New York ratified the document. Lansing’s proposed amendments, including a bill of rights, were part of the deal.

Ironically, the New York Constitution then in effect did not include a bill of rights. But in early 1787, Samuel Jones (another person central to the ratification bargain) had submitted a proposed statutory bill of rights to the legislature. When passed on January 26, 1787, it became “AN ACT concerning the rights of the citizens of this State.”

This measure became an important source for New York’s proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution. It particularly focused on the right of people prosecuted by the state to “due process of law”—indeed, it used that phrase four times. It also employed the synonyms “due course of law” and “in due manner.”

When Madison drafted what became the Fifth Amendment, he adopted the term most often employed by Lansing and his fellow New Yorkers: “due process of law.”

I have placed a copy of the New York Bill of Rights here. As the document makes clear, “due process of law” meant merely, “in accordance with existing legal procedures.” It had nothing to do with the content of the laws themselves, as the U.S. Supreme Court has mistakenly ruled.

This article was originally published at the Independence Institute, and is reposted here with permission of the author.

The post How the New York Bill of Rights Helped Lead to the U.S. Bill of Rights first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Most Important and Most Ignored: James Wilson’s State House Yard Speech

Alan Mosley — Fri, 04 Oct 2024 18:42:08 +0000

Everyone’s heard of the Federalist Papers – Hamilton, Madison, Jay – but the most important Federalist speech in the entire ratification debate didn’t come from any of them. It came from James Wilson – a name most people have never even heard of. His 1787 State House Yard Speech laid the foundation for the entire Federalist playbook. In this episode, we’ll explore why he gave the speech, why it had such a huge impact, and dive into Wilson’s key arguments for the Constitution.

Path to Liberty: October 4, 2024

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Tara Ross – James Wilson’s State House Speech

Concordia University – A Daily Journal for Sept 29, 1787

Center for the Study of the American Constitution

Natelson – The Founders and the Constitution: James Wilson

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

Episode – Bill of Rights: 5 Hidden Truths They Never Teach

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to James Madison (20 Dec 1787)

A Democratic Federalist (17 Oct 1787)

George Washington – Letter to David Stuart (17 Oct 1787)

Scott Douglas Gerger – Chapter 5. James Wilson: Democratic Theorist and Supreme Court Justice

Natelson – The False Doctrine of Inherent Sovereign Authority

Benner – James Wilson’s State House Yard Speech: A Primer

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 and Most Ignored: James Wilson’s State House Yard Speech first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Now in Effect: Maryland Law Places Some Limits on Police Use of Facial Recognition

Mike Maharrey — Fri, 04 Oct 2024 18:04:10 +0000

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (Oct. 4, 2024) – On Tuesday, a new Maryland law placing some limits on government use of facial recognition surveillance went into effect.

Sen. Charles Sydnor introduced Senate Bill 182 (SB182) on Jan. 10. Rep. David Moon introduced the companion bill, House Bill 338 (HB338), a week later. The new law bans the use of facial recognition for live or real-time identification. It also prohibits its use on a sketch or manually produced image, and on individuals “engaged in activity protected under the United States Constitution, the Maryland Constitution, or the Maryland Declaration of Rights” unless there is reasonable suspicion to believe the individual has committed a crime.

The new law also limits the use of facial recognition to the investigation of certain crimes, including “crimes of violence,” human trafficking, child abuse, child pornography, certain weapons crimes, and a criminal act “involving circumstances presenting a substantial and ongoing threat to public safety or national security.” When used in such an investigation, facial recognition cannot be used as the sole basis to establish probable cause.

Going forward, results generated by facial recognition can only be introduced as evidence in a criminal proceeding to establish probable cause or a positive identification in connection with a warrant or at a preliminary hearing.

While the law will not end government use of facial recognition in Maryland, it sets the foundation by placing limits on the technology and preventing ongoing surveillance using facial recognition.

The House passed the legislation by a 136-0 vote. The Senate approved the measure 46-0. With Gov. Wes Moore’s signature, the law went into effect on Oct. 1, 2024.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS

A 2019 report revealed that the federal government has turned state driver’s license photos into a giant facial recognition database, putting virtually every driver in America in a perpetual electronic police lineup. The revelations generated widespread outrage, but the story wasn’t new. The federal government has been developing a massive facial recognition system for years.

The FBI rolled out a nationwide facial recognition program in the fall of 2014, with the goal of building a giant biometric database with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends.

In 2016, the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law released “The Perpetual Lineup,” a massive report on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology in the U.S. You can read the complete report at perpetuallineup.org. The organization conducted a year-long investigation and collected more than 15,000 pages of documents through more than 100 public records requests. The report paints a disturbing picture of intense cooperation between the federal government, and state and local law enforcement to develop a massive facial recognition database.

“Face recognition is a powerful technology that requires strict oversight. But those controls, by and large, don’t exist today,” report co-author Clare Garvie said. “With only a few exceptions, there are no laws governing police use of the technology, no standards ensuring its accuracy, and no systems checking for bias. It’s a wild west.”

Despite the outrage generated by these reports, Congress has done nothing to roll back this facial recognition program.

There are many technical and legal problems with facial recognition, including significant concerns about the accuracy of the technology, particularly when reading the facial features of minority populations. During a test run by the ACLU of Northern California, facial recognition misidentified 26 members of the California legislature as people in a database of arrest photos.

With facial recognition technology, police and other government officials can track individuals in real time. These systems allow law enforcement agents to use video cameras and continually scan everybody who walks by. According to the report, several major police departments have expressed an interest in this type of real-time tracking. Documents revealed agencies in at least five major cities, including Los Angeles, either claimed to run real-time face recognition off of street cameras, bought technology with the capability, or expressed written interest in buying it.

In all likelihood, the federal government heavily involves itself in helping state and local agencies obtain this technology. The feds provide grant money to local law enforcement agencies for a vast array of surveillance gear, including ALPRs, stingray devices, and drones. The federal government essentially encourages and funds a giant nationwide surveillance net and then taps into the information via fusion centers and the Information Sharing Environment (ISE).

Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a bipartisan congressional report to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”

Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to its website, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.

Reports that the Berkeley Police Department in cooperation with a federal fusion center deployed cameras equipped to surveil a “free speech” rally and Antifa counterprotests provided the first solid link between the federal government and local authorities in facial recognition surveillance.

In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. The passage of state laws and local ordinances banning and limiting facial recognition eliminates one avenue for gathering facial recognition data. Simply put, data that doesn’t exist cannot be entered into federal databases.

The post Now in Effect: Maryland Law Places Some Limits on Police Use of Facial Recognition first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Now in Effect: Alabama Law Prohibits Credit Card Codes to Track Firearms Purchases

Mike Maharrey — Thu, 03 Oct 2024 15:25:03 +0000

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (Oct 3, 2024) – On Tuesday, the Alabama Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act went into effect. The new law prohibits financial institutions operating in the state from using a credit card merchant code to enable the tracking of firearm and ammunition purchases.

Sen. Tim Melson sponsored Senate Bill 281 (SB281). The new law will “prohibit a financial institution from requiring merchants to use a merchant category code (MCC) to distinguish a firearms retailer from a general merchandise retailer or a sporting goods retailer during a firearms transaction amounting to financial surveillance and from disclosing financial information regarding the transaction.”

The House passed the measure by a vote of 85-5. It passed the Senate unanimously, 32-0. With Gov. Ivey’s signature, the new law went into effect on Oct. 1, 2024.

Under the law, a financial institution can only disclose “protected financial information” if they get written authorization from the customer or if a court-issued subpoena requires disclosure.

Protected financial information is defined as “Any record of sale, purchase, return, or refund involving a payment card that is retrieved, characterized, generated, labeled, sorted, or grouped based on the assignment of a firearms code.”

The State Attorney General is also authorized to investigate alleged violations. Those found guilty in a court of law will be subject to a fine of no more than $10,000 per violation.

Over the 2023-2024 legislative sessions, at least 14 states have passed similar legislation.

PAUSED

In response to legislation like SB281, the major credit card payment networks have “paused” implementation of the firearms merchant code. 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 September 2022, the International Standards Organization, based in Switzerland, approved a new merchant category code for firearm and ammunition merchants. 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 constitutionally protected firearms and ammunition purchases in cooperation with law enforcement.

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

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Data collected from this merchant code would almost certainly end up in federal government databases.

Concern about the misuse of federal firearms databases isn’t just paranoia. The Taliban has reportedly used a firearm ownership database created by the U.S. government to track down gun owners and confiscate firearms in Afghanistan. This goes to show that even if you trust the people creating the database, it can fall into the wrong hands. In other words, the very existence of a database is a danger.

The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through fusion centers and a system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE.

In practice, local data collection using ALPRs, stingrays, drones and other spy technologies create the potential for the federal government to obtain and store information on millions of Americans including phone calls, emails, web browsing history, location history, and text messages, all with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it.

In a nutshell, without state and local assistance, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. 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.

The post Now in Effect: Alabama Law Prohibits Credit Card Codes to Track Firearms Purchases first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.