TAC Daily Digest

To the Governor: Alabama Bill Would Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender

Mike Maharrey — Tue, 01 Apr 2025 23:30:57 +0000

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (April 1, 2025) – With a unanimous vote in both chambers, the Alabama Legislature has sent a bill to the governor’s desk that would formally recognize gold and silver as legal tender in the state. If signed into law, the measure would take a crucial step toward undermining the Federal Reserve’s monopoly by introducing real competition into the monetary system.

On Tuesday, the House passed the Alabama Legal Tender Act (SB130) by a vote of 102-0, following the Senate’s earlier 31-0 approval. The legislation now heads to Gov. Kay Ivey for her consideration.

Sponsored by Sen. Tim Melson, SB130 would recognize “any refined gold or silver bullion, specie, or coin that has been stamped, marked, or imprinted with its weight and purity” as legal tender in Alabama.

If enacted, Alabama would become the seventh state to reestablish 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, Louisiana, and Idaho have since joined.

GOLD CONTRACT CLAUSE

Beyond the provisions to make gold and silver legal tender, SB130 includes language recognizing gold or silver contract clauses.

“No person shall be required to offer or accept any recognized legal tender … except as specifically provided for by contract or otherwise required by law.”

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

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

IN PRACTICE

The passage of SB130 would represent another step against the fiat-based Federal Reserve system by creating a foundation to pull the rug out from under it on the state and local levels.

Alabama recently repealed both its sales tax and capital gains tax on gold and silver. The passage of SB130 would take another step, further opening the door for residents to use gold or silver as money rather than as mere investment vehicles.

In essence, it would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

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

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

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

New Hampshire also boasts a thriving gold and silver economy. While the state does not officially recognize bullion as legal tender, this has not deterred thousands of residents from using it in private transactions. Because there are no state tax barriers on precious metals, a favorable tax climate – combined with a population willing to embrace sound money – has positioned New Hampshire as another model for others to follow.

BACKGROUND

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

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

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

WHAT’S NEXT

Gov. Ivey must sign or veto SB130 within 10 days of session adjournment (scheduled for April 6), or the legislation is pocket vetoed.

The post To the Governor: Alabama Bill Would Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

To the Governor: Arkansas Bill Would Prohibit Credit Card Codes to Track Firearms Purchases

Mike Maharrey — Tue, 01 Apr 2025 15:35:47 +0000

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (April 1, 2025) – A bill to block financial institutions from tracking firearms and ammunition purchases through specialized merchant codes is now awaiting Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ approval after receiving final passage in the Arkansas Senate yesterday.

Under the Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act, (HB1509) a payment card network operating in Arkansas would be prohibited from requiring the use of or assigning a merchant category code “that distinguishes a firearms retailer from other retailers” on transactions within the state.

It would also prohibit any entity that establishes a relationship with a retailer for the purposes of processing credit, debit, or prepaid transactions from assigning a “merchant category code that distinguishes the firearms retailer from other retailers, including without limitation merchant category code 5723.”

Arkansas merchants would be barred from assigning category code 5723 as well.

Additionally, the proposed law would prohibit any person, unit of government, or governmental organization from “knowingly keeping or causing to be kept a list, record, or registry of a privately owned firearm or an owner of a privately owned firearm.”

On March 18, the House passed HB1509 by an 80-14 vote. On March 31, the Senate approved the measure 33-0, sending it to Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ desk for her consideration.

Rep. Howard Beaty and Sen. Ricky Hill are the sponsors of HB1509.

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

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS

In response to legislation such as HB1509, the major credit card payment networks “paused” the 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

Sanders will have 5 days (excluding Sunday) from the date HB1509 is transmitted to her office to sign or veto the bill. If she takes no action, it will become law without her signature.

The post To the Governor: Arkansas Bill Would Prohibit Credit Card Codes to Track Firearms Purchases first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Kentucky Legislature Overrides Governor’s Veto, Reinstates Sales Tax Exemption on Gold and Silver

Mike Maharrey — Mon, 31 Mar 2025 22:16:15 +0000

FRANKFORT, Ky. (March 31, 2025) – Last week, the Kentucky House and Senate overrode Governor Andy Beshear’s veto and reinstated a sales tax exemption on gold and silver.

In 2024, the Kentucky legislature repealed the sales tax on gold and silver bullion in an omnibus revenue bill. Gov. Beshear signed the bill but line-item vetoed the tax repeal on bullion. With the backing of Attorney General Russell Coleman, the legislature deemed the veto unconstitutional and ordered the law to be enrolled as statute. Beshear rejected the AG’s opinion and directed the Department of Revenue to collect the sales tax despite the law technically being on the books.

Rep. TJ Roberts, along with a large coalition of cosponsors, filed House Bill 2 (HB2) to end collection of the tax and to provide a legal process for those charged the tax after its repeal to sue in state circuit court for a refund with interest, along with damages.

“We’re not just stopping this overreach; we’re ensuring refunds, interest, and damages for anyone improperly taxed,” Roberts wrote in a post on X.

The House and Senate overwhelmingly approved the measure, and as expected, Beshear vetoed it.

Roberts vowed the legislature would override the veto.

“Last year, we repealed the gold and silver sales tax, but Andy Beshear persistently stood in the way of the will of the people. This year, I will make sure the legislature fulfills the will of the people of Kentucky.”

The legislature followed through and overrode Beshear’s veto. The Senate approved the override by a 31-6 vote, and the House did so by an 80-19 margin.

Within hours of the veto override, three Kentuckians and Money Metals Exchange, an Idaho-based gold dealer, filled a class action suit to recover the sales tax they paid after Beshear ignored the legislature and began collecting the tax anyway.

IMPACT

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

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

“Citizens of Kentucky, or of any state in the United States, for that matter, shouldn’t be taxed for trying to use, buy, or transact in honest, sound money,” Roberts said in an interview with the Sound Money Defense League.

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

BACKGROUND

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

The post Kentucky Legislature Overrides Governor’s Veto, Reinstates Sales Tax Exemption on Gold and Silver first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Missouri House Passes Bill to Reestablish Second Amendment Preservation Act

Michael Boldin — Sat, 29 Mar 2025 21:26:20 +0000

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Mar. 29, 2025) – The Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) took a major step forward as the full House passed a bill to refine its language, addressing federal court objections while maintaining the state’s prohibition on enforcing federal gun control.

SAPA, signed into law in 2021, prohibits the enforcement of numerous federal gun control measures deemed to “infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.” In early 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice sued to block the enforcement of SAPA, citing primarily, its effectiveness.

Since then, two federal courts have affirmed Missouri’s right to refuse to participate in federal gun control enforcement under the anti-commandeering doctrine. However, both courts rejected some of SAPA’s language asserting the unconstitutionality of federal gun laws, citing that as their basis for holding the entire act unconstitutional.

Rep. Bill Hardwick introduced House Bill 1175 (HB1175) to amend SAPA and address the federal courts’ objections. It has since garnered 23 co-sponsors. Under the proposed law, public officers and employees of the state and its political subdivisions would be prohibited from enforcing or attempting to enforce “any federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances regarding firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition,” unless they were mirrored in state law.

On Mar 27, the House passed the measure by a vote of 100-51.

IMPACT

Withdrawing state support for federal gun control enforcement has already demonstrated a significant impact in Missouri. The ATF explicitly acknowledged this in its lawsuit against SAPA, noting that severed partnerships with state and local law enforcement have “severely impaired federal criminal law enforcement operations within the State of Missouri.”

Federal enforcement efforts, including gun control, rely heavily on state participation. The DOJ’s lawsuit and public statements confirm that SAPA has disrupted joint task forces, information-sharing, and other critical state-federal partnerships

For instance, the Missouri State Highway Patrol and multiple local law enforcement agencies withdrew officers from ATF task forces in response to SAPA’s provisions, forcing the federal government to operate without critical state-level resources.

The federal government depends on state cooperation to enforce most of its laws and programs, including gun control. During the 2013 partial government shutdown, the National Governors’ Association noted, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”

Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits. As Judge Andrew Napolitano observed, a single state withdrawing support could render federal gun control laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.

This approach aligns with the anti-commandeering doctrine, which affirms that states are not obligated to use their resources to enforce federal acts or regulatory programs. By simply refusing to help enforce, states can nullify many federal actions in practice and effect.

LEGAL BASIS

Under the Constitution, states have the legal authority to bar their agents from enforcing federal gun control.

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

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

As the 3rd Chief Justice, Oliver Ellsworth put it, “This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity”

Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or regulatory program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five major Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842.

Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.

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

The anti-commandeering doctrine affirms that state and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or regulatory programs, regardless of their constitutionality.

PENALTIES

HB1175 retains SAPA’s provision imposing a $50,000 civil penalty per occurrence on political subdivisions or law enforcement agencies that employ officers who knowingly violate the law, allowing injured parties to seek legal or equitable remedies.

This applies to a law enforcement officer who gives “material aid and support to the efforts of another who enforces or attempts to enforce or participates in any way in the enforcement or implementation of any federal acts, laws, executive orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances regarding firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition” as prohibited under the law.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB1175 will now move to the Senate, where it needs to pass through the committee process before the full chamber can concur.

The post Missouri House Passes Bill to Reestablish Second Amendment Preservation Act first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Three Pillars of Power: Luther Martin’s Anti-Federalist Warnings

Mike Maharrey — Sat, 29 Mar 2025 02:39:24 +0000

Luther Martin warned that the Constitution would create a centralized national government with few real restraints – one that would steadily erode state sovereignty, override local control, and impose its will under the guise of law.

In his essay Genuine Information, he outlined the many ways he believed the proposed system would accelerate the consolidation of power. Among these dangers, he singled out three provisions as particularly alarming: an all-powerful federal judiciary, the ability to suspend habeas corpus, and the continuation of slavery.

Together, Martin saw these provisions as a dangerous trifecta – key pillars of a broader system of unchecked national power. He feared this system would reduce the states to mere administrative units, make justice unattainable, and embed moral contradiction into the very foundation of the new republic.

FEDERAL JUDICIARY: SUPREME AND UNCHECKED

Martin warned that a federal judiciary with far-reaching powers would lie at the core of this centralized national system.

With sweeping appellate jurisdiction, no external checks from state courts, and exclusive judicial authority over cases arising under the Constitution, Martin believed the federal judiciary would become a tool for consolidating federal power – allowing the general government to define the scope of its own power without any recourse for the states.

“These courts, and these only, will have a right to decide upon the laws of the United States, and all questions arising upon their construction, and in a judicial manner to carry those laws into execution; to which the courts, both superior and inferior, of the respective States, and their judges and other magistrates, are rendered incompetent.”

Martin argued that by centralizing judicial power in the federal courts, which would be “confined to [deciding] all cases arising under the proposed constitution,” the Constitution would effectively sideline state judiciaries, stripping them of their ability to safeguard local interests or resist federal encroachments.

He further warned that state courts would be explicitly stripped of jurisdiction over “all cases in law or equity, arising under the proposed constitution,” rendering state judiciaries “incompetent” and reducing them to mere administrative bodies, powerless to check federal power.

Martin argued that by empowering “judges who are appointed by Congress” with exclusive authority to determine whether “any laws or regulations of the Congress, or any acts of its President or other officers, are contrary to, or not warranted by the constitution,” the Constitution ensured that the general government would define the limits of its own power – leaving the states defenseless against its expansion.

Martin later clarified that his original proposal for the Supremacy Clause, introduced during the Philadelphia Convention, was designed to ensure that state courts – not federal courts – would serve as the first arbiters involving federal laws and treaties. His concern was not just the supremacy of federal law, but how and where it would be interpreted in judicial proceedings.

“When this clause was introduced, it was not established that inferior continental courts should be appointed for trial of all questions arising on treaties and on the laws of the general government, and it was my wish and hope that every question of that kind would have been determined, in the first instance, in the courts of the respective states.”

Under his proposal, Martin believed that state courts would not operate merely as subordinates to federal power, but would serve as critical safeguards against unconstitutional overreach. Placing initial responsibility for interpreting federal laws and treaties in state courts, he explained, meant that judges would be bound to reject any that conflicted with their state’s constitution or bill of rights.

“…if such treaties or laws were inconsistent with our constitution and bill of rights, the judiciaries of this state would be bound to reject the first and abide by the last; since in the form I introduced the clause, notwithstanding treaties and the laws of the general government were intended to be superior to the laws of our state government, where they should be opposed to each other, yet that they were not proposed, nor meant to be superior to our constitution and bill of rights.”

However, the final version of the Supremacy Clause stripped state courts of their ability to serve as the first arbiters of federal law, leaving disputes over its meaning increasingly subject to centralized, federal interpretation.

Martin viewed the final Supremacy Clause as a “total and unconditional surrender” of state sovereignty. In his view, it empowered the general government to impose laws that directly violated rights secured by state constitutions, with no judicial recourse at the state level.

Taken together, Martin saw this erosion of state judicial power as an intentional feature of the Constitution – one designed to strip the states of their ability to resist centralized control.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION OVER FACTS AND LAW

With state courts stripped of jurisdiction, Martin warned that the Supreme Court’s power would inevitably expand – not only over constitutional interpretation but also over jury trials, extending to both matters of law and fact.

He believed this would strip juries of their role as a check against arbitrary power, reducing trials to mere formalities. Martin warned that under this system, “the general government may … have the facts examined again, and decided upon by its own judges.”

In Martin’s view, this would effectively nullify the foundational protection of trial by jury – long considered a safeguard against arbitrary power – reducing local jury trials to empty rituals and stripping state courts of their ability to protect individual rights.

Martin warned that by establishing such a powerful judiciary, the Constitution would dismantle this core safeguard of liberty. He emphasized that jury trials had “long been considered the surest barrier against arbitrary power, and the palladium of liberty.”

But under the new system, he cautioned that they “are taken away by the proposed form of government, not only in a great variety of questions between individual and individual, but in every case, whether civil or criminal, arising under the laws of the United States, or the execution of those laws.”

Because the federal judiciary would hold jurisdiction over both law and fact, Martin warned that ordinary people – especially those challenging federal officials like tax collectors – would hold “little prospect of success, and almost a certain prospect of ruin.”

BURDEN ON ORDINARY CITIZENS

Martin argued that this consolidation of judicial power would not only strip states of their ability to protect their people – it would also make justice virtually unattainable for most.

With jury protections eroded and federal courts wielding unchecked power, Martin warned ordinary people would be trapped in a legal system designed to serve federal interests rather than deliver justice. Worse, those who attempted to challenge it would face overwhelming financial and logistical burdens, ensuring that true justice remained out of reach for most people.

This raised another concern: justice would become a privilege of the wealthy, who alone could endure “a loss of time, a neglect of business, and an expense which will be greater than the original grievance.”

Martin emphasized that this burden would fall hardest on the “middle and common classes,” as even seeking relief from injustice would force them to pursue cases in distant federal courts: “the application must be made to one of the courts of the United States.”

Even those who prevailed in a lower court would not necessarily find relief. If their case were appealed, they would face an impossible choice: “…at once give up his cause, or attend to it at the distance of perhaps more than a thousand miles.”

Martin concluded that the appeal process would impose crushing burdens, demanding “a loss of time, a neglect of business, and an expense which will be greater than the original grievance, and to which men in moderate circumstances would be utterly unequal.”

HABEAS CORPUS: A TOOL FOR OPPRESSION?

For Martin, one of the most alarming consequences of centralized judicial power was that it gave the federal government the ability to imprison individuals indefinitely – without any recourse to state courts.

He warned that the Constitution’s provision allowing the suspension of habeas corpus was ripe for abuse and could become “an engine of oppression.”

This power could be weaponized to silence opposition, Martin warned. If a state resisted the general government’s directives – “however arbitrary and unconstitutional” – the general government could declare it an act of rebellion, leading to the suspension of habeas corpus and the indefinite imprisonment of those who defied its authority. As he put it:

“…whenever a State should oppose its views, however arbitrary and unconstitutional, and refuse submission to them, the general government may declare it to be an act of rebellion, and, suspending the habeas corpus act, may seize upon the persons of those advocates of freedom, who have had virtue and resolution enough to excite the opposition…”

Once invoked, this power would not only suppress opposition – it would also exile political dissidents, severing them from their homes, communities, and support networks. As Martin described, “…[the government] may imprison them during its pleasure, in the remotest part of the Union; so that a citizen of Georgia might be bastiled in the furthest part of New Hampshire, or a citizen of New Hampshire in the furthest extreme to the south, cut off from their family, their friends, and their every connexion.”

By permanently isolating those who resisted, Martin warned, the general government could ensure that opposition was not merely punished -but crushed.

SLAVERY

Martin saw slavery as an irreconcilable contradiction in a system that claimed to protect liberty while preserving human bondage. To him, it was more than a moral failure – it was a damning indictment of a Constitution that professed to defend freedom while entrenching oppression.

Though a slaveholder himself, Martin argued that slavery had no place in the United States and should be abolished. At the Philadelphia Convention, he denounced it as “an odious bargain with sin,” condemning it as “inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution, and dishonorable to the American character, to have such a feature in the Constitution.”

Speaking before the Maryland legislature, Martin emphasized that the Constitution granted the general government “full and absolute power to regulate commerce,” meaning it could restrain or even abolish the slave trade. Yet despite this sweeping power, it carved out an exception for “the only branch of commerce, which is unjustifiable in its nature, and contrary to the rights of mankind.”

Rather than protecting slavery, Martin insisted, the Constitution should have explicitly banned “the further importation of slaves.”

Further, he argued that the general government should have clear constitutional authority to enact policies for “the gradual abolition of slavery, and the emancipation of the slaves which are already in the States.”

Martin was not alone in condemning the Constitution’s protection of slavery. George Mason, another fierce critic, opposed it in part because of its compromise on the international slave trade.

In his notes on the Philadelphia Convention, James Madison specifically wrote that Mason “held it essential in every point of view, that the Genl. Govt. should have power to prevent the increase of slavery.”

Later, in a May 1788 letter to Thomas Jefferson, Mason summarized his objections, writing that “a Compromise between the Eastern, and the two Southern States, to permit the latter to continue the Importation of Slaves for twenty odd Years” was the key to establishing a majority in favor of the Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention. He called the importation of slaves “a more favourite Object with them than the Liberty and Happiness of the People.”

THE INESCAPABLE OUTCOME

Martin warned that the Constitution’s structure would pave the way for an unchecked national government – one that would steadily erode state sovereignty and threaten individual liberty.

He argued that the supremacy of federal courts would strip states of their ability to protect local interests – and impose crushing burdens on the people, especially those of modest means, who would struggle to obtain justice in a distant, unaccountable system.

More broadly, Martin warned that allowing federal courts to determine the constitutionality of federal laws would make the general government the judge of its own power – eliminating any meaningful external check.

He also warned that federal control over habeas corpus would give the general government a tool to silence opposition, detain dissenters, and erode liberty under the guise of law.

In a nutshell, there would be no justice under a federal justice system.

Martin’s warnings were not abstract fears – they foreshadowed real constitutional struggles that would define American history.

Nowhere was this more evident than in his critique of slavery, which laid bare the Constitution’s greatest contradiction – one that would fester for generations, finally erupting in a bloody war.

The post Three Pillars of Power: Luther Martin’s Anti-Federalist Warnings first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Signed as Law: Utah Affirms State and Federal Jurisdictional Boundaries

Mike Maharrey — Sat, 29 Mar 2025 00:20:05 +0000

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (March 28, 2025) – On Wednesday, Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed a bill into law affirming clear boundaries between state and federal jurisdiction.

House Bill 380 (HB380) amends an existing declaration of state sovereignty in Utah law to include the presumption that the state has authority over all matters not delegated to the federal government.

“Jurisdiction over all governing subject matters arising within the state is presumed to reside with the state except as otherwise enumerated in the United States Constitution, as amended.”

The new law includes a declaration asserting the extent of state sovereignty.

“The state has general governing authority under the state’s inherent police power jurisdiction over all governing matters within the state affecting public welfare, safety, health, and morality, as recognized under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

The subject areas asserted within the state’s police powers jurisdiction include, “without limitation:”

(i) Natural resources;
(ii) Water resources and water rights;
(iii) Agriculture;
(iv) Education; and
(v) Energy resources

The law will place the burden of overcoming the state presumption of jurisdiction on the federal government.

“The presumption of state jurisdiction … may only be overcome if the federal government demonstrates that jurisdiction over the subject matter in question is specifically enumerated to the federal government under the United States Constitution, as amended.”

On March 7, the Senate passed HB380 by a 19-5 vote. The House concurred with a Senate amendment by a 52-13 vote. With Gov. Cox’s signature, the law will go into effect on May 7.

Rep. Ken Ivory and Sen. Kevin Stratton sponsored the legislation.

It remains unclear how the enactment of this legislation will play out in practice. There is no mechanism to require the federal government to observe the jurisdictional boundaries set by the state of Utah. However, the law draws a clear line in the sand and makes these jurisdictional boundaries crystal clear. This could set the stage for the state to take additional action when the federal government crosses the line, including passing legislation to refuse to cooperate with federal efforts to enforce specific acts.

The post Signed as Law: Utah Affirms State and Federal Jurisdictional Boundaries first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

How to Protect Shipping Routes without Shredding the Constitution

Michael Boldin — Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:31:37 +0000

Defending ocean trade routes doesn’t require shredding the Constitution. When French warships were seizing hundreds of American vessels, President John Adams didn’t panic. He followed the Constitution – deferred to Congress over a dozen times – and still got the job done. In this episode, learn the forgotten – and completely ignored – history behind war powers and the Constitution, and how it all played out in the so-called Quasi-War with France.

Path to Liberty: March 28, 2025

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Maharrey – War Powers: The True History of John Adams and the Quasi-War with France

John Adams – Address to a Joint Session of Congress on Relations with France (16 May 1797)

John Jay – Charge to the Grand Jury, the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia (22 May 1793)

An Act to prevent citizens of the United States from Privateering against nations to amity with, or against citizens of the United States (14 June 1797)

An Act providing a Naval Armament (1 July 1797)

John Adams – First Annual Address to Congress (22 Nov 1797)

John Adams – Special Message to Congress (19 Mar 1798)

An Act to establish an Executive department, to be denominated the Department of the Navy (30 Apr 1798)

James McHenry – Letter to Alexander Hamilton (12 May 1798)

Alexander Hamilton – Letter to James McHenry (17 May 1798)

James McHenry – Letter to John Adams (18 May 1798)

An Act to declare the treaties heretofore concluded with France, no longer obligatory on the United States (7 July 1798)

An Act further to protect the Commerce of the United States (9 July 1798)

An Act vesting the power of retaliation, in certain cases, in the President of the United States (3 Mar 1799)

An Act further to suspend the commercial intercourse between the United States and France, and the dependence thereof (27 Feb 1800)

An Act to continue in force “An act to authorize the defence of the merchant vessels of the United States against French depredations” (22 Apr 1800)

John Adams – Letter to John Marshall (4 Sept 1800)

Bas v Tingy (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 How to Protect Shipping Routes without Shredding the Constitution first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Tennessee Senate Committee Advances Measure to Facilitate Gold and Silver Reserves

Mike Maharrey — Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:50:18 +0000

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (March 27, 2025) – On Tuesday, a Tennessee Senate committee passed a bill to establish a mechanism to facilitate the establishment of state-owned gold and silver reserves, including their purchase and sale. If passed, the measure could bolster Tennessee’s financial stability, hedge against inflation, and reduce reliance on the Federal Reserve’s fiat currency.

In 2023, the Tennessee legislature authorized the state treasurer to “purchase and sell gold or precious metal bullion or specie that will be directly owned by the state.” Filed by Sen. Paul Baily, Senate Bill 168 (SB168) would create a “precious metals fund” for the purpose of “acquiring, converting, storing, and selling precious metal bullion and specie.”

On March 25, the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee passed SB168 by an 8-0 vote.

SB168 would appropriate $50 million from the general fund in the fiscal year 2025-2026 “for the purchase of precious metal bullion,” with an additional $50 million appropriated in each subsequent year.

The treasurer would be authorized to convert state-owned gold and silver bullion into coins and to sell up to 10 percent of them to the public “for the purpose of establishing the brand and reputation of Tennessee bullion and the fair market value of bullion manufactured in this state and held by the state.”

The other 90 percent of the gold and silver would be held as state reserves.

IMPACT

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

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

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

WHAT’S NEXT

SB168 will move to the Senate Finance Ways and Means Committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Tennessee Senate Committee Advances Measure to Facilitate Gold and Silver Reserves first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Defend the Guard Act Passes Arizona House Committee

Mike Maharrey — Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:38:36 +0000

PHOENIX, Ariz. (Mar. 27, 2025) – The Arizona Defend the Guard Act took another step forward yesterday when a House committee advanced the measure by a 4-2 vote.

The legislation would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the Arizona National Guard into “active duty combat” unless Congress passed an “official declaration of war” as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, or if Congress takes “an official action pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 15″ of the Constitution for the United States.

On March 26, the House Federalism, Military Affairs & Elections Committee advanced the measure with a “do pass” recommendation by a 4-2 vote. Sen. Wendy Rogers, along with a large number of cosponsors, filed the Arizona Defend the Guard Act as Senate Bill 1495 (SB1495). The Senate previously passed the bill by a vote of 16-13.

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

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

A similar bill has passed the Arizona Senate the last two years, but it has yet to clear the state House. Residents of Arizona can take action to help the Defend the Guard Act move forward at this link.

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

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

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

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

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

DUTY

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

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

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

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

While getting this bill over the finish line won’t be easy, and it 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 Arizona Defend the Guard Act. He said, “The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist.”

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

WHAT’S NEXT

SB1495 will now move to the House Rules Committee, where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Defend the Guard Act Passes Arizona House Committee first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Florida Senate Committee Advances Bill to Expand Sales Tax Exemption on Gold and Silver

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 26 Mar 2025 17:54:14 +0000

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (March 26, 2025) – Yesterday, a Florida Senate committee unanimously passed a bill that would treat gold and silver more like money by expanding the state sales tax exemption on bullion.

Under the current Florida tax code, the sale of gold, silver, and platinum bullion is exempt from the state sales tax if the total transaction is greater than $500. Senate Bill 134 (S134), filed by Sen. Ana Rodriguez, would remove the $500 limit and exempt the sale of all gold, silver, and platinum bullion from the sales tax.

On March 25, the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee passed S134 by a 9-0 vote.

IMPACT

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

BACKGROUND

WHAT’S NEXT

S134 now moves to the Senate Finance and Tax Committee, where it will need to get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Florida Senate Committee Advances Bill to Expand Sales Tax Exemption on Gold and Silver first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Signed as Law: Utah Bans Warrantless Reverse-Keyword Search Surveillance

TAC News — Wed, 26 Mar 2025 16:51:37 +0000

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (March 26, 2025) – Yesterday, Gov. Spencer Cox signed a bill into law to bar reverse key-word searches without a warrant in most cases.

This is another advance in Utah’s step-by-step approach to protect privacy and limit the surveillance state. In 2023, Utah enacted a law banning warrantless geofence location tracking, Rep. Ryan Wilcox and Sen. Todd Weiler filed House Bill 273 (HB273) to add any search for “reverse keyword information” to that warrant requirement.

The Senate passed HB273 by a 24-0 vote. It cleared the House by a 69-0 vote. With the Governor’s signature, the new law goes into effect May 7, 2025.

Reverse-keyword information is defined as “information that identifies an unnamed individual, by name or other unique identifier, who electronically searched for a particular word, phrase, character string, or website, or visited a particular website through a link generated by an electronic search for a particular word, phrase, character string, or website.” For instance, police could seek a list of all the people who searched for the word “bomb” within a given area.

In effect, reverse-keyword searches are a massive fishing expedition, subjecting hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people to police scrutiny simply for conducting an internet search.

HB273 includes exceptions to the warrant requirement in a few prescribed situations, including to locate a 911 caller in an emergency as dictated by current statute and under “a judicially recognized exception to warrant requirements.”

The law stipulates that in a reverse-keyword search warrant, “the court shall require that all electronic device data provided pursuant to the warrant be anonymized before the reverse-keyword information or reverse-location information is released to the law enforcement agency.”

Reverse keyword data will also be subject to the same retention, disclosure and destruction requirements as geofence location data.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS

The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of surveillance information gathered at the state and local level.

The feds provide grant money to local law enforcement agencies for a vast array of surveillance gear, including ALPRs, stingray devices, and drones, essentially encouraging and funding a giant nationwide surveillance net. It can then tap into the information via the Information Sharing Environment (ISE).

Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. In effect, the network serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered by multiple agencies across the country, generally without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA.

By funding state and local surveillance programs, the feds can obtain warrantless data without having to expend the resources to collect it themselves. By restricting the collection of data at the state and local levels, legislation such as HB273 simultaneously limits the information available for the feds to access.

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 reverse-keyword searches eliminates one avenue for gathering data. Simply put, data that doesn’t exist cannot be entered into federal databases.

The post Signed as Law: Utah Bans Warrantless Reverse-Keyword Search Surveillance first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Oklahoma House Passes Bill to Expand Gold and Silver as Legal Tender

Mike Maharrey — Tue, 25 Mar 2025 16:50:38 +0000

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. (March 25, 2025) – The Oklahoma House passed two bills to significantly expand the types of gold and silver recognized as legal tender in the state, and to establish a 100% gold and silver-backed transactional currency supported by a bullion depository.

Rep. Cody Maynard and Sen. David Bullard filed House Bill 1199 (HB1199) to expand Oklahoma’s definition of legal tender to include gold and silver bullion, exempt specie from taxation, and require courts to enforce gold clause contracts. The duo also filed House Bill 1197 (HB1197) to establish a 100% gold and silver-backed transactional currency through a state-authorized bullion depository and issue a “transaction card” for everyday use.

GOLD AND SILVER AS LEGAL TENDER

In 2014, Oklahoma took the first step and declared that gold and silver coins issued by the United States government are legal tender in the State of Oklahoma. HB1199 would significantly expand that definition to include gold and silver bullion. It also allows courts to recognize “other specie” as legal tender if ruled within the state’s authority. This opens the door to a wider range of coins and bullion being used as money in the state.

This is the approach that Utah took, and as a result, the state has built what is likely the most robust foundation for the advancement of gold and silver as money in the United States.

HB1199 also defines legal tender as “a recognized medium of exchange for the payment of debts and taxes.” This would require the state to accept gold and silver for taxes, fees, and other payments.

The House passed HB1199 by a 73-15 vote on March 25.

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

REMOVING TAXES

HB1199 would exempt specie legal tender from all forms of taxation.

“The exchange of one type or form of legal tender for another type or form of legal tender shall not give rise to any tax liability.” This clause would also specifically repeal the state’s capital gains tax on gold and silver specie.

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

Oklahoma already exempts gold and silver bullion from sales tax. Exempting the sale of bullion from capital gains taxes takes another step toward treating gold and silver as money instead of commodities.

Imagine if the IRS taxed you every time the dollar gained against the euro. That’s what capital gains taxes on gold and silver effectively do. As precious metals rise with dollar devaluation, the government penalizes you – essentially taxing sound money for doing its job.

“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.

GOLD CONTRACT CLAUSE

HB1199 also specifies, “If a valid contract expressly designates a type or form of specie as tender, then an Oklahoma court asked to adjudicate the breach of such a contract shall require, as a remedy for the breach, the specific performance of tendering the type or form of specie specified in the contract.”

In practice, this means if parties agree to pay or be paid in gold or silver, Oklahoma courts couldn’t substitute anything else – such as Federal Reserve Notes – as payment.

TRANSACTIONAL CURRENCY

HB1197 would authorize the state treasurer to issue a “transaction card” tied to gold and silver deposits held in a state-approved bullion depository. The treasurer could either create the depository or partner with public or private entities to manage it.

The bill specifies that gold and silver deposits, along with electronic transactions 100 percent backed by these metals, “shall be considered legal tender.”

The House passed HB1197 by a 77-15 vote.

If implemented, the system would work like a debit card, converting gold and silver holdings into fiat at the point of sale.

By enabling transactions backed by gold and silver, HB1197 would provide an alternative to the fiat dollar, offering a way to protect purchasing power from inflation and currency devaluation.

IN PRACTICE

Practically speaking, recognizing gold and silver as legal tender and creating a gold/silver-backed transactional currency would allow Oklahoma residents to use gold and silver as money rather than as mere investment vehicles.

The passage of HB1199 and HB1197 would represent another step against the fiat-based Federal Reserve system by creating a foundation to pull the rug out from under it on the state and local levels. In essence, it would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

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

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

The act 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.

BACKGROUND

WHAT’S NEXT

HB1197 and HB1199 will move to the Senate for further consideration. They will be assigned to a Senate committee where they must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

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

Kansas Senate Passes Bill to Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender, End Taxes on Both

Mike Maharrey — Mon, 24 Mar 2025 19:44:28 +0000

TOPEKA, Kan. (March 24, 2025) – Yesterday, the Kansas Senate passed a bill that would officially recognize gold and silver as legal tender and repeal state taxes on the metals. Passage into law would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

Under Senate Bill 39 (SB39), the Kansas Legal Tender Act: “specie legal tender” would be a “recognized medium of exchange for the payment of debts and taxes.” This would include gold and silver coins and bullion “issued by the United States government at any time” or that “a court of competent jurisdiction, by final and unappealable order, rules to be within state authority to make or designate as legal tender.”

The proposed law stipulates that “specie legal tender may be transacted, transmitted or exchanged by physical or electronic means subject to the Kansas Money Transmission Act and any rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.”

On March 24, the Senate passed SB39 by a 28-12 vote.

The enactment of SB39 would make Kansas the seventh 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, Louisiana, and Idaho have since joined.

IN PRACTICE

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

Passage of SB39 would represent a big first step against the fiat-based Federal Reserve system by creating a foundation to pull the rug out from under it on the state and local levels. In essence, it would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

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

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

REMOVING TAXES

Under SB39, “The exchange of one type or form of legal tender for another type or form of legal tender shall not give rise to any tax liability of any kind.” This would effectively repeal all taxes on gold and silver specie.

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

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

Kansas 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.

GOLD CONTRACT CLAUSE

Beyond the provisions to make gold and silver legal tender, the bill includes language recognizing gold or silver contract clauses.

“Kansas courts shall require specific performance as a remedy for breach of any contract designating a type or form of specie as tender.”

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

BACKGROUND

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

WHAT’S NEXT

SB39 will move to the House for further consideration. Once it receives a committee assignment, it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Kansas Senate Passes Bill to Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender, End Taxes on Both first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Lysander Spooner vs the Supreme Court: The Judicial Supremacy Lie

Michael Boldin — Mon, 24 Mar 2025 17:05:00 +0000

“An unconstitutional judicial decision is no more binding than an unconstitutional legislative act.” With that one line, Lysander Spooner demolished the dangerous myth of judicial supremacy – the idea that a court’s opinion becomes law simply because judges say so. In this episode, we break down Spooner’s powerful insights and warnings, echoing the words of many Founders who’ve been long forgotten today. The truth is simple and radical: the Constitution is the supreme law of the land – not the opinions of unelected judges. Judicial supremacy isn’t just unconstitutional. It’s tyranny.

Path to Liberty: March 24, 2025

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Lysander Spooner – A Defence for Fugitive Slaves (1850)

Alexander Hamilton – Federalist 78 (28 May 1788)

James Madison – Report of 1800 (7 Jan 1800)

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

John Marshall – Marbury v Madison (1803)

Episode – Marbury v. Madison Exposed: The Shocking Truth Behind Judicial Review

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to William Charles Jarvis (28 Sept 1820)

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

John Jay – Extracts of the Minutes of the United States Circuit Court for New York (5 Apr 1792)

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

James Wilson – Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention (1 Dec 1787)

Episode – Oath vs Censorship: Jefferson on the Duty to Stop Unconstitutional Laws

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 vs the Supreme Court: The Judicial Supremacy Lie first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Florida House Subcommittee Passes Bill to Recognize Gold and Silver Legal Tender

Mike Maharrey — Fri, 21 Mar 2025 19:20:45 +0000

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (Mar. 21, 2025) – Yesterday, a Florida House subcommittee unanimously passed a bill that would officially recognize gold and silver as legal tender and repeal state taxes on their use and exchange. Passage into law would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

Under House Bill 999 (H999), sponsored by Rep. Doug Bankson and Rep. Monique Miller, “specie legal tender” would be recognized as legal tender for the “payment of debts, public charges, taxes, or dues.”

State agencies and political subdivisions would be authorized to accept gold or silver for the payment of taxes and fees “if the governmental entity consents to payment with gold or silver and possesses the regulatory authority and technical ability to accept gold or silver payments.”

Under the law, specie legal tender would include, “specie issued by the Federal Government at any time or any other specie recognized by this state or any other state pursuant to section 10, Article I of the United States Constitution.”

“Specie” is defined as coins minted from “refined gold or silver in any shape or form, as adopted by rule by the Chief Financial Officer, which is valued primarily based on the content of the gold or silver and not on its form and function.”

On March 20, the House Insurance and Banking Subcommittee passed H999 by a 16-0 vote.

The passage of H999 would make Florida the seventh 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, Louisiana, and Idaho have since joined.

IN PRACTICE

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

Passage of H999 would represent a big first step against the fiat-based Federal Reserve system by creating a foundation to pull the rug out from under it on the state and local levels. In essence, it would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

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

GOLD CONTRACT CLAUSE

Beyond the provisions to make gold and silver legal tender, H999 includes language recognizing gold or silver contract clauses.

“Unless specifically provided by the State Constitution or general law or by contract, a person may not compel another person to tender specie or to accept specie as legal tender.”

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

REMOVING TAXES

H999 would effectively repeal all state taxes on the purchase or use of specie.

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

In effect, it would repeal the state’s capital gains tax on gold and silver bullion.

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

Florida 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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

WHAT’S NEXT

H999 needs to pass the full House Insurance and Banking by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Florida House Subcommittee Passes Bill to Recognize Gold and Silver Legal Tender first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Is Trump Really Cutting the Size of Government?

Rob Natelson — Fri, 21 Mar 2025 17:58:46 +0000

The Trump administration has fired about 25,000 federal workers to date. Media and politicians are telling the American people that this is a massive “slash and burn” cut to the federal government.

The truth is quite different. The number 25,000 represents only a tiny slice from the federal work force. Specifically, it’s about 8/10 of one percent of the 3,000,000 civilian federal employees.

It’s also far less than federal civilian employment has grown in recent years. According to the Pew Research Center, there were 548,200 more non-postal civilian federal workers in 2024 than in 2000. So far, the Trump cuts amount to less than five percent of the Bush-Obama-Biden increases.

Democrats, Republicans, and the mass media all have incentives to exaggerate the scope of the Trump administration’s firings, just as they had incentives to exaggerate the alleged regulatory reductions during the first Trump administration. In both cases, the changes have been marginal. The Trump regulatory reductions were really reductions in the rate of regulatory increase. And they were easily reversable—and were reversed—by the Biden administration.

Employment reductions also are easily reversable.

The only way to make real and somewhat permanent reductions in the size of the federal government is for Congress to repeal laws that authorize agencies, particularly agencies—such as the U.S. Department of Education and the Department of Housing and Urban Development—that have no bona fide constitutional basis. Moreover, Congress must terminate those agencies’ functions rather than to re-assign them to other departments, and the President must terminate their employees.

It is still early in the second Trump administration. Whether Congress or the administration have the stomach for real cuts remains to be seen.

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

The post Is Trump Really Cutting the Size of Government? first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Idaho Constitutional Money Act Signed as Law

TAC News — Thu, 20 Mar 2025 23:04:08 +0000

BOISE, Idaho (March 20, 2025) – Yesterday, a bill to officially recognize gold and silver as legal tender in the state was signed into law by Gov. Brad Little.

Under the Idaho Constitutional Money Act of 2025, which goes into effect on July 1, 2025, gold and silver coins and “specie” minted domestically will be recognized as legal tender in the state and will be “accepted for the satisfaction of debts under the laws of the state of Idaho or of the United States.”

Specie is defined in the bill as “stamped or imprinted coin having gold or silver content; or refined gold or silver bullion that is coined, stamped, or imprinted with its weight and purity and valued primarily based on its metal content and not its form.”

The law specifically declares, “The state may also elect to use gold and silver coin and specie in conducting its business.”

The House State Affairs Committee filed the legislation as House Bill 177 (H177). On Feb. 20, the House passed H177 by a 66-3 vote. The Senate concurred, unanimously on Mar. 13.

The enactment of H177 makes Idaho 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.

GOLD CONTRACT CLAUSE

Beyond the provisions to make gold and silver legal tender, H177 includes language recognizing gold or silver contract clauses.

“Unless expressly provided by statute or by contract, no person or other entity may compel another person or other entity to tender or accept gold or silver coin or specie unless agreed upon by the parties.”

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

IN PRACTICE

The new law’s legislative findings declare, “The Legislature hereby recognizes the right of Idahoans to conduct business in gold and silver coin and specie uninhibited at their own discretion as a right never delegated by the people of Idaho to any governmental institution.”

Practically speaking, this will allow Idaho residents to use gold or silver as money rather than as mere investment vehicles.

Enactment of H177 represents a big first step against the fiat-based Federal Reserve system by creating a foundation to pull the rug out from under it on the state and local levels. In essence, it sets the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

The next step will 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.

BACKGROUND

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

The post Idaho Constitutional Money Act Signed as Law first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Alabama House Committee Unanimously Passes Bill to Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 19 Mar 2025 22:43:26 +0000

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (March 19, 2025) – Today, an Alabama House committee advanced a bill to recognize gold and silver as legal tender. If enacted, it would set the stage for the people to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

On March 19, the House Committee on Financial Services unanimously advanced the Alabama Legal Tender Act, Senate Bill 130 (SB130) sponsored by Sen. Tim Melson. The Senate previously approved the measure by a 31-0 vote.

Under the proposed law, “any refined gold or silver bullion, specie, or coin that has been stamped, marked, or imprinted with its weight and purity” would be recognized as legal tender in the state.

The passage of SB130 would make Alabama 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.

On March 4, the Senate passed SB130 by a 31-0 vote.

GOLD CONTRACT CLAUSE

Beyond the provisions to make gold and silver legal tender, SB130 includes language recognizing gold or silver contract clauses.

“No person shall be required to offer or accept any recognized legal tender … except as specifically provided for by contract or otherwise required by law.”

IN PRACTICE

Passage of SB130 would represent another step against the fiat-based Federal Reserve system by creating a foundation to pull the rug out from under it on the state and local levels.

In essence, it would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

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

BACKGROUND

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

WHAT’S NEXT

SB130 will move to the full House for further consideration.

The post Alabama House Committee Unanimously Passes Bill to Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Arkansas House Passes Bill to Prohibit Credit Card Codes to Track Firearms Purchases

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 19 Mar 2025 22:18:54 +0000

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (March 19, 2025) – Yesterday, the Arkansas House passed a bill that would prohibit financial institutions operating in the state from using a credit card merchant code to enable the tracking of firearm and ammunition purchases.

Under House Bill 1509 (HB1509), the Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act, a payment card network operating in Arkansas would be prohibited from requiring the use of or assigning a merchant category code “that distinguishes a firearms retailer from other retailers” on transactions within the state. It would also prohibit any entity that establishes a relationship with a retailer for the purposes of processing credit, debit, or prepaid transactions from assigning a “merchant category code that distinguishes the firearms retailer from other retailers, including without limitation merchant category code 5723.”

Arkansas merchants would be barred from assigning category code 5723 as well.

On March 18, the House passed HB1509 by an 80-14 vote.

Rep. Howard Beaty and Sen. Ricky Hill are the sponsors of HB1509.

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

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS

In response to legislation such as HB1509, 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

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

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

WHAT’S NEXT

HB1509 will move to the Senate. It was referred to the Senate Insurance and Commerce Committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vore before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Arkansas House Passes Bill to Prohibit Credit Card Codes to Track Firearms Purchases first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Kansas Senate Committee Passes Bill to Make Gold and Silver Legal Tender, End Taxes on Both

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 19 Mar 2025 20:22:22 +0000

TOPEKA, Kan. (March 19, 2025) – Yesterday, a Kansas Senate committee advanced a bill that would officially recognize gold and silver as legal tender and repeal state taxes on the metals. Passage into law would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

Under Senate Bill 39 (SB39), “specie legal tender” would be a “recognized medium of exchange for the payment of debts and taxes.” This would include gold and silver coins and bullion “issued by the United States government at any time” or that “a court of competent jurisdiction, by final and unappealable order, rules to be within state authority to make or designate as legal tender.”

On March 18, the Senate Committee on Assessment and Taxation recommended SB39 for passage.

The enactment of SB39 would make Kansas the sixth state to recognize gold and silver as legal tender, as they always should have been doing. Utah led the way, reestablishing constitutional money in 2011. Wyoming, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana have since joined.

IN PRACTICE

Practically speaking, this would allow Kansas residents to use gold or silver in both physical and electronic forms 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

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

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

GOLD CONTRACT CLAUSE

Beyond the provisions to make gold and silver legal tender, the bill includes language recognizing gold or silver contract clauses.

“Kansas courts shall require specific performance as a remedy for breach of any contract designating a type or form of specie as tender.”

BACKGROUND

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

WHAT’S NEXT

SB39 can now move to the full Senate for further consideration.

The post Kansas Senate Committee Passes Bill to Make Gold and Silver Legal Tender, End Taxes on Both first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Alien Enemies Act: Why James Madison DIDN’T Oppose it

Michael Boldin — Wed, 19 Mar 2025 18:40:48 +0000

“With respect to alien enemies, no doubt has been intimated as to the federal authority over them.” That was James Madison, referring to the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 – an act he saw as constitutional while rejecting the rest of the Alien and Sedition Acts. In this episode, you’ll learn what the act actually says, why Madison defended it while opposing the others, and how narrowly it applies in practice.

Path to Liberty: March 19, 2025

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

An Act Respecting Alien Enemies (6 July 1798)

James Madison – Report of 1800 (7 Jan 1800)

John Jay – Opinion, the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia: Ware v. Hylton (7 June 1793)

Blackstone’s Commentaries – Book 1, Chapt 10 – Of the People, Whether Aliens, Denizens, or Natives (1765)

Emmerich De Vattel – The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

Episode – The “Declare War” Lie: What the Founders and Constitution REALLY Said

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 Alien Enemies Act: Why James Madison DIDN’T Oppose it first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Texas House Panel Holds Hearing on Defend the Guard Act

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 19 Mar 2025 05:05:38 +0000

AUSTIN, Texas (March 18, 2025) – A Texas House subcommittee held a hearing on the Texas Defend the Guard Act on Monday, an important first step in the legislative process. The bill would require the governor to stop unconstitutional combat deployments of the state’s National Guard troops.

The Texas Defend the Guard Act 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

On March 17, the House Defense and Veteran’s Affairs Subcommittee held a public hearing on the Defend the Guard Act. This is an important first step in the legislative process.

A large group of supporters testified in favor of the bill, including several veterans, a West Point graduate, and foreign policy expert Scott Horton.

The day before the hearing, Bring Our Troops Home director Dan McKnight noted the difficulty in getting state legislators to stand up to federal overreach in a post on X.

“Some state legislators are acting like they need a permission slip from Washington to stand up for the Constitution. That’s not leadership — that’s cowardice.”

Rep. Briscoe Cain filed House Bill 930 (HB930) earlier this year.

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.

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.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DUTY

McGeehan served as an Air Force intelligence officer in Afghanistan and has sponsored similar legislation in his state since 2016.

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 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 need to be brought up for a vote and pass the House Defense and Veteran’s Affairs Subcommittee by a majority before moving to the full committee for further consideration.

The post Texas House Panel Holds Hearing on Defend the Guard Act first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

The “Declare War” Lie: What the Founders and Constitution REALLY Said

Michael Boldin — Mon, 17 Mar 2025 18:30:07 +0000

Almost every politician and so-called expert wants you to believe the president can unilaterally take the United States to war – just as long as they don’t call it a war. But that’s not what the Constitution says, that’s not how the Founders understood it, and that’s not how Presidents Washington, Adams, Jefferson, or Madison followed it in practice. In this episode, you’ll learn the truth about what the Constitution really means by DECLARE WAR

Path to Liberty: March 17, 2025

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Constitution: A Transcription

Thomas Jefferson – Message to Congress (6 Dec 1805)

James Wilson – Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention (11 Dec 1787)

Alexander Hamilton – Pacificus No. 1 (29 June 1793)

James Madison – Helvidius No. 1 (24 Aug 1793)

James Madison – Helvidius No. 4 (14 Sept 1793)

Episode – Constitution: The Wisest Part According to James Madison

George Mason – Philadelphia Convention (17 Aug 1787)

St. George Tucker – Blackstone’s Commentaries

James Madison – Letter to Thomas Jefferson (2 Apr 1798)

Pierce Butler – South Carolina Legislature (16 Jan 1788)

John Jay – Federalist No. 4 (4 Nov 1787)

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

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

Maharrey – War Powers: The True History of James Madison, the Constitution and the War of 1812

Thomas Sheridan – A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1789)

Samuel Johnson – Dictionary of the English Language (1773)

George Washington – Letter to Timothy Pickering (5 Mar 1795)

George Washington – 5th Annual Message to Congress (3 Dec 1793)

John Adams – Letter to Thomas Jefferson (14 June 1813)

John Adams – Letter to John Marshall (4 Sept 1800)

James Madison – Special Message to Congress on the Foreign Policy Crisis – War Message (1 June 1812)

John Marshall – Talbot v Seeman (1801)

Prakash – Unleashing the Dogs of War: What the Constitution Means by ‘Declare War’

Justice Samuel Chase – Bas v Tingy (1800)

John Locke – Second Treatise Chapters 01-03 (1690)

Emer De Vattel – The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

John Adams – Address to a Joint Session of Congress on Relations with France (16 May 1797)

Alexander Hamilton – Letter to James McHenry (17 May 1798)

Maharrey – War Powers: The True History of John Adams and the Quasi-War with France

Boldin – War Powers: The True History of Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates

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 The “Declare War” Lie: What the Founders and Constitution REALLY Said first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

To the Governor: Kentucky Bill Would Reinstate Vetoed Sales Tax Exemption on Gold and Silver

Mike Maharrey — Mon, 17 Mar 2025 17:36:41 +0000

FRANKFORT, Ky. (March 17, 2025) – On Friday, the Kentucky House and Senate gave final approval to a bill that would effectively reinstate a sales tax exemption on gold and silver that Gov. Andy Beshear ignored.

In 2024, the Kentucky legislature repealed the sales tax on gold and silver bullion in an omnibus revenue bill. Gov. Beshear signed the bill, but line-item vetoed the tax repeal on bullion. With the backing of Attorney General Russell Coleman, the legislature deemed the veto unconstitutional and ordered the law to be enrolled as statute. Beshear rejected the AG’s opinion and directed the Department of Revenue to collect the sales tax despite the law technically being on the books.

“We’re not just stopping this overreach; we’re ensuring refunds, interest, and damages for anyone improperly taxed,” Roberts wrote in a post on X.

The House initially passed HB2 by a 76-17 vote. On March 12, the Senate passed the measure with an amendment that would provide a tax filing extension for those impacted by recent floods by a 35-5 vote. The House rejected the Senate amendments and on March 14, the Senate receded from the amendment by a 30-6 vote, sending the bill to Gov. Beshear’s desk.

IMPACT

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

WHAT’S NEXT

Gov. Beshear will have 10 days (excluding Sundays) from the data the HB2 is transmitted to his office to sign or veto the bill. If he takes no action, it will become law without his signature. Roberts said he expects Beshear to veto the measure.

“Passing the Senate is a huge win, but the fight isn’t over yet! I expect a veto, but I’m committed to rallying the votes to override it and make this law a reality. You deserve a stronger, freer Kentucky, and I won’t stop until we get there.”

The post To the Governor: Kentucky Bill Would Reinstate Vetoed Sales Tax Exemption on Gold and Silver first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Arkansas House Committee Advances Bill to Prohibit Credit Card Codes to Track Firearms Purchases

Mike Maharrey — Sat, 15 Mar 2025 00:33:03 +0000

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (March 13, 2025) – Yesterday, an Arkansas House committee passed a bill that 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. Howard Beaty and Sen. Ricky Hill filed House Bill 1509 (HB1509). Under the Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act, a payment card network operating in Arkansas would be prohibited from requiring the use of or assigning a merchant category code “that distinguishes a firearms retailer from other retailers” on transactions within the state. It would also prohibit any entity that establishes a relationship with a retailer for the purposes of processing credit, debit, or prepaid transactions from assigning a “merchant category code that distinguishes the firearms retailer from other retailers, including without limitation merchant category code 5723.”

Arkansas merchants would be barred from assigning category code 5723 as well.

On March 12, the House Committee on Insurance and Commerce advanced HB1509 with a do pass recommendation.

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

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS

In response to legislation such as HB1509, 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

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

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

WHAT’S NEXT

HB1509 can now move to the full House for further consideration.

The post Arkansas House Committee Advances Bill to Prohibit Credit Card Codes to Track Firearms Purchases first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

The Supremacy Clause Hoax: How We Became What the Founders Fought

Michael Boldin — Fri, 14 Mar 2025 19:10:22 +0000

Federal law is NOT always supreme – far from it. That’s a myth ripped straight from the British system that sparked the American Revolution. This episode exposes the Supremacy Clause Hoax – one of the worst distortions of the Constitution, pushing the idea that the federal government holds virtually unlimited power. The Founders fought a long, bloody war to escape that very system – yet today, it’s being embraced once again.

Path to Liberty: March 14, 2025

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Maharrrey – America Embraces the Tyranny its Founders Fought to Reject

Episode – The Forgotten Law That Caused the American Revolution

State Court Report

Cornell Law – Supremacy Clause

Mark Pulliam – Tennessee Star

Constitution – Full Text

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

Maharrey – The Myth of Absolute Federal Supremacy

Alexander Hamilton – Federalist 78 (28 May 1788)

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

Alexander Hamilton – Federalist 33 (3 Jan 1788)

Thomas Jefferson – Kentucky Resolutions (10 Nov 1798)

James Madison – Federalist 45 (26 Jan 1788)

Centinel V (4 Dec 1787)

Episode – How to Enforce the Constitution: Whether the Government Likes it or Not

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 The Supremacy Clause Hoax: How We Became What the Founders Fought first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

To the Governor: Idaho Passes Bill to Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender

Mike Maharrey — Thu, 13 Mar 2025 17:47:28 +0000

BOISE, Idaho (March 13, 2025) – Today, the Idaho Senate unanimously gave final approval to a bill to officially recognize gold and silver as legal tender in the state, sending it to the governor for his consideration.

Under the Idaho Constitutional Money Act of 2025, gold and silver coins and “specie” minted domestically would be recognized as legal tender in the state and would be “accepted for the satisfaction of debts under the laws of the state of Idaho or of the United States.”

The legislation specifically declares, “The state may also elect to use gold and silver coin and specie in conducting its business.”

As reported by JP Cortez of the Sound Money Defense League, today the Idaho Senate passed the measure unanimously, sending the bill to Gov. Brad Little’s Desk. The House State Affairs Committee filed the legislation as House Bill 177 (H177). On Feb. 20, the House passed H177 by a 66-3 vote.

The enactment of H177 would make Idaho 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.

GOLD CONTRACT CLAUSE

Beyond the provisions to make gold and silver legal tender, H177 includes language recognizing gold or silver contract clauses.

IN PRACTICE

The bill’s legislative findings declare, “The Legislature hereby recognizes the right of Idahoans to conduct business in gold and silver coin and specie uninhibited at their own discretion as a right never delegated by the people of Idaho to any governmental institution.”

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

Enactment of H177 would represent a big first step against the fiat-based Federal Reserve system by creating a foundation to pull the rug out from under it on the state and local levels. In essence, it would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

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

BACKGROUND

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

WHAT’S NEXT

Gov. Little will have five days (excluding Sunday) from the date H177 is transmitted to his office to sign or veto the bill. If he takes no action, it will become law without his signature.

The post To the Governor: Idaho Passes Bill to Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Second Amendment Preservation Act Clears Key Hurdle in Missouri

Michael Boldin — Thu, 13 Mar 2025 16:12:02 +0000

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Mar. 13, 2025) – The Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) took a big step forward as an important House committee advanced a bill to refine its language, addressing federal court objections while maintaining the state’s prohibition on enforcing federal gun control.

On Feb. 26, the House General Laws Committee passed HB1175 by a vote of 9-4. Today, the House rules committee gave the bill a “Do Pass” recommendation, making the bill eligible for debate and vote by the full House.

Rep. Bill Hardwick introduced House Bill 1175 (HB1175) to amend SAPA and address the federal courts’ objections. It has since garnered 14 co-sponsors. Under the proposed law, public officers and employees of the state and its political subdivisions would be prohibited from enforcing or attempting to enforce “any federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances regarding firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition,” unless they were mirrored in state law.

IMPACT

LEGAL BASIS

Under the Constitution, states have the legal authority to bar their agents from enforcing federal gun control.

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

As the 3rd Chief Justice, Oliver Ellsworth put it, “This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity”

Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.

The anti-commandeering doctrine affirms that state and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or regulatory programs, regardless of their constitutionality.

PENALTIES

WHAT’S NEXT

HB1175 will now be eligible to move to the full House, where it will need to pass by a majority vote before being transmitted to the Senate.

The post Second Amendment Preservation Act Clears Key Hurdle in Missouri first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Senate Committee Holds Hearing on Missouri “Constitutional Money Act” to Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender

Mike Maharrey — Thu, 13 Mar 2025 00:47:28 +0000

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (March 12, 2024) – Yesterday, a Missouri Senate committee held a hearing on two bills that would make gold and silver legal tender, and take other important steps toward treating them as money.

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 this legislation 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. Mike Moon introduced Senate Bill 25 (SB25). 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.

On March 11, the Senate Insurance and Banking Committee held a hearing on both bills, an important first step in the legislative process. There were three witnesses signed up to testify in favor of the bills, with the Missouri Chamber of Commerce signed up in opposition of SB194.

IN PRACTICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

REMOVING TAXES

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

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

FEDERAL CONFISCATION SCHEMES

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.”

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

SB25 and SB194 must be brought up for a vote in the Senate Insurance and Banking Committee and pass by a majority before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Senate Committee Holds Hearing on Missouri “Constitutional Money Act” to Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Arizona House Committee Advances Bill to Block CBDC as Legal Tender and Money

Mike Maharrey — Thu, 13 Mar 2025 00:46:26 +0000

PHOENIX, Ariz. (Mar. 12, 2025) – On Monday, an Arizona House committee passed a bill that would expressly exclude a central bank digital currency (CBDC) from the definition of money and legal tender in the state, creating potentially significant roadblocks to its use as such.

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

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

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

On March 11, the House Commerce Committee passed SB1095 by a 6-4 vote. The Senate has already approved the measure by a vote of 17-12.

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

IN PRACTICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCIES (CBDC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT’S NEXT

SB1095 will now move to the House Rules committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving to the full House.

The post Arizona House Committee Advances Bill to Block CBDC as Legal Tender and Money first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

The Forgotten Law That Caused the American Revolution

Michael Boldin — Wed, 12 Mar 2025 18:14:14 +0000

On March 18, 1766, the British Parliament repealed the Stamp Act – but on the very same day, they passed something far more dangerous: the Declaratory Act. This law claimed Parliament had the power to make laws “in all cases whatsoever” over the American colonies. It wasn’t just about taxes or representation – it was about unlimited, centralized power. Decades later, James Madison called this the “fundamental principle” behind independence. John Hancock, Thomas Paine, John Dickinson, and Thomas Jefferson all saw it as the true cause of the Revolution. But they never teach this in government-run schools.

Path to Liberty: March 12, 2025

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Episode – REFUSE TO COMPLY: How the Stamp Act Was Nullified

Declaratory Act (18 March 1766)

Benjamin Franklin – Examination before the Committee of the Whole of the House of Commons (13 Feb 1766)

John Adams – Diary (Apr 1766)

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

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

Joseph Warren – A List of Infringements and Violations of Rights (20 Nov 1772)

Benjamin Franklin – Rules By Which A Great Empire May Be Reduced To A Small One (11 Sept 1773)

Episode – Benjamin Franklin’s Rules for Bringing Down Empires

Samuel Adams – Letter to Joseph Hawley (4 Oct 1773)

Richard Henry Lee – Letter to Samuel Adams (13 Oct 1773)

John Hancock – Massacre Day Oration (5 Mar 1774)

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

Alexander Hamilton – A Full Vindication of the Measures of the Congress (15 Dec 1774)

Benjamin Franklin – Letter to Joseph Galloway (25 Feb 1775)

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

Declaration of Independence (1776)

Thomas Paine – The Crisis I (23 Dec 1776)

James Madison – Report of 1800 (7 Jan 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 The Forgotten Law That Caused the American Revolution first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

West Virginia Senate Committee Passes Bill Targeting EPA Overreach

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 12 Mar 2025 17:09:35 +0000

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (March 12, 2025) – Yesterday, a West Virginia Senate committee passed a bill that would strike a blow to federal overreach by halting state and local enforcement of a number of EPA rules and regulations.

Sponsored by Sen. Patrick Martin and three cosponsors, Senate Bill 271 (SB271) would prohibit state agencies, political subdivisions of the state, and their employees acting in an official capacity from “knowingly and willingly” participating in the enforcement of “any federal act, law, order, rule, or regulation relating to coal, oil, gas, timber, or other extractive resources, or downstream industries related to such extractive resources, if the act, law, order, rule, or regulation does not exist under the laws of this state.”

It would also ban the utilization of any assets, state funds, or funds allocated by the state to local entities for enforcement of the same.

The proposed law includes provisions to shield state and local employees who refuse to cooperate with federal enforcement from legal consequences.

On March 11, the Senate Energy, Industry, and Mining Committee approved SB271.

EFFECTIVE

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

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

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

LEGAL BASIS

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

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

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

WHAT’S NEXT

SB271 will move to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post West Virginia Senate Committee Passes Bill Targeting EPA Overreach first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

To the Governor: Utah Bill Would Affirm State and Federal Jurisdictional Boundaries

Mike Maharrey — Tue, 11 Mar 2025 11:27:56 +0000

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (March 11, 2025) – Last week, the Utah House and Senate gave final approval to a bill that would affirm clear boundaries between state and federal jurisdiction.

Introduced by Rep. Ken Ivory and Sen. Kevin Stratton, House Bill 380 (HB380) would amend an existing declaration of state sovereignty in Utah law to include the presumption that the state has authority over all matters not delegated to the federal government.

“Jurisdiction over all governing subject matters arising within the state is presumed to reside with the state except as otherwise enumerated in the United States Constitution, as amended.”

The proposed law includes a declaration asserting the extent of state sovereignty.

The subject areas asserted within the state’s police powers jurisdiction include, “without limitation:”

(i) Natural resources;
(ii) Water resources and water rights;
(iii) Agriculture;
(iv) Education; and
(v) Energy resources

The proposed law would place the burden of overcoming the state presumption of jurisdiction on the federal government.

On March 7, the Senate passed HB380 by a 19-5 vote. The House concurred with a Senate amendment by a 52-13 vote, sending the legislation to Gov. Spencer Cox’s desk for his consideration.

It remains unclear how the enactment of this legislation would play out in practice. There is no mechanism to require the federal government to observe the jurisdictional boundaries set by the state of Utah. However, the proposed law would draw a clear line in the sand and make these jurisdictional boundaries crystal clear. This could set the stage for the state to take additional action when the federal government crosses the line, including passing legislation to refuse to cooperate with federal efforts to enforce specific acts.

WHAT’S NEXT

Gov. Cox will have until March 27 to sign or veto HB380. If he takes no action, it will become law without his signature.

The post To the Governor: Utah Bill Would Affirm State and Federal Jurisdictional Boundaries first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Texas Bill Would Create 100% Backed Gold and Silver Transactional Currency

Mike Maharrey — Mon, 10 Mar 2025 18:27:43 +0000

AUSTIN, Texas (March 10, 2025) – A bill filed in the Texas Senate would establish a 100 percent gold and silver-backed digital currency recognized as legal tender in the state.

Sen. Bryan Hughes filed Senate Bill 665 (SB665). The legislation would require the state comptroller to establish and issue gold and silver specie, defined as “a precious metal stamped into coins of uniform shape, size, design, content, and purity, suitable for or customarily used as currency.” The comptroller would also be required to establish a transactional currency backed 100 percent by gold and silver held in the Texas Bullion Depository created in 2015.

Under the law, both specie and gold/silver-backed digital currency would be considered “legal tender in payment of debt.”

The digital currency would represent gold and/or silver backed by metals stored in trust at the depository, allowing electronic transfers based on precise fractional troy ounce measurements. The depository would oversee all transfers, ensuring they remain fully backed by physical gold or silver.

As legal tender, both the physical specie and gold and silver-backed digital currency could be used by individuals, businesses, and the state for the payment of debts, taxes, and everyday transactions at the discretion of the recipient – offering an alternative to inflationary fiat.

By establishing a framework for sound money, SB665 would position Texas at the forefront of efforts to reduce reliance on the Federal Reserve’s fiat monetary system.

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 Bullion 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.

BACKGROUND

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

WHAT’S NEXT

SB665 was referred to the Senate Finance Committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

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

West Virginia Bill Would Make Gold and Silver Legal Tender, Establish 100% Backed Gold and Silver Transactional Currency

Mike Maharrey — Mon, 10 Mar 2025 18:23:10 +0000

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (Mar. 10, 2025) – A bill filed in the West Virginia House would officially recognize gold and silver as legal tender and authorize a state-issued 100 percent gold and silver-backed currency supported by a state bullion depository.

Del. Chris Anders and seven cosponsors filed House Bill 2463 (HB2463). Under the proposed law, “gold or silver coin issued by the government of the United States and any bullion unit or specie accepted for deposit by the West Virginia Bullion Depository” would be recognized as legal tender “for the payment of all debts heretofore or hereafter contracted by the citizens of this state.”

The legislation would authorize the establishment of the West Virginia Bullion Depository to “serve as the custodian, guardian, and administrator of all bullion and specie deposited with the state pursuant to this article.”

The passage of HB2463 would make West Virginia the sixth state to recognize gold and silver as legal tender, as they always should have been doing. Utah led the way, reestablishing constitutional money in 2011. Wyoming, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana have since joined.

IN PRACTICE

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

Passage of HB2463 would represent a big first step against the fiat-based Federal Reserve system by creating a foundation to pull the rug out from under it on the state and local levels. In essence, it would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

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

GOLD AND SILVER TRANSACTIONAL CURRENCY

Provisions in HB2463 would authorize the West Virginia Bullion Depository to establish a transactional currency backed 100 percent by gold and silver and create a sound money alternative to U.S. dollars in electronic form.

“Each unit of the transactional currency issued to an account holder shall represent a particular fraction of a troy ounce of gold or silver held in the account holder’s depository account.”

In effect, individuals and businesses would be able to transact business electronically using currency backed by gold and/or silver held in the depository.

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 West Virginia 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.

REMOVING TAXES

Under HB2463, bullion and specie held in the West Virginia Bullion Depository would not be considered personal property and would not be subject to ad valorem personal property taxation. The legislation also specifies that “the exchange of one type of legal tender for another type of legal tender recognized in this state shall not give rise to tax liability; and the purchase, sale, or exchange of any type of legal tender recognized by this state may not give rise to tax liability.”

This would effectively repeal all state taxes on gold and silver specie that is considered legal tender.

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

WHAT’S NEXT

HB2463 was referred to the House Finance Committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post West Virginia Bill Would Make Gold and Silver Legal Tender, Establish 100% Backed Gold and Silver Transactional Currency first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

To the Governor: Utah Bill Would Create Gold and Silver-Backed Payment System for State Vendors

Mike Maharrey — Mon, 10 Mar 2025 15:09:20 +0000

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (March 10, 2025) – Last week, the Utah House and Senate gave final approval to a bill that would create a system allowing the state to make and accept payments in gold and silver.

Introduced by Rep. Ken Ivory, House Bill 306 (HB306) would require the state treasurer to “develop and issue a competitive procurement to create, supply, and operate a precious metals-backed electronic payment system for the state.” The payment system would use “gold or silver vaulted within the state,” be made publicly available, and allow for “the redemption of physical gold or silver by system participants.”

On March 7, the Senate passed HB306 with some minor amendments by a 22-4 vote. The House concurred with the Senate version by a 58-6 vote, sending the bill to Governor Spencer Cox’s desk for his consideration.

In practice, the passage of this legislation would allow vendors doing business with the State of Utah to accept payment in gold or silver in electronic form backed 100 percent by physical metal. They would also be able to redeem this electronic currency in physical metal. This would provide vendors a way to shield themselves from the rapid loss of purchasing power inherent in the fiat dollar.

The bill stipulates that the law would not “require any state entity to participate in the precious metals-backed electronic payment system.”

HB306 would also require the treasurer to “evaluate the options and implications for allowing state employees to receive compensation through the precious metals-backed electronic payment system.”

While the payment system would initially be limited to participating vendors, it could also set the stage for state and local agencies in Utah to accept payment from residents in gold and silver.

STEP BY STEP

The enactment of HB306 would build on several previous incremental steps Utah has taken to support sound money.

Utah was the first state to reestablish constitutional money in 2011. Wyoming, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana have since joined.

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

BACKGROUND

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

WHAT’S NEXT

Gov. Spencer will have until March 27 to sign or veto HB306. If he takes no action, it will become law without his signature.

The post To the Governor: Utah Bill Would Create Gold and Silver-Backed Payment System for State Vendors first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Arizona Senate Passes Bill to Ban Credit Card Codes that Track Gun Purchases

Mike Maharrey — Fri, 07 Mar 2025 23:23:17 +0000

PHOENIX, Ariz. (March 6, 2025) – The Arizona Senate passed a bill that would prohibit financial institutions operating in the state from using a credit card merchant code that enables the tracking of firearm and ammunition purchases.

The Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act would bar financial institutions operating in the state from requiring or incentivizing “the use of a merchant category code in a manner that distinguishes a firearm retailer from other retailers.” It would also bar financial institutions from assigning a merchant category code that distinguishes a firearm retailer from other retail businesses.

Introduced by Sen. Wendy Rogers, Senate Bill 1143 (SB1143) passed the Senate by a 17-12 vote on March 5.

Provisions in the bill would also prohibit any state or local government entity from knowingly keeping “any list, record or registry of privately owned firearms or the owners of the firearms” except during “the regular course of a criminal investigation” or if required by law.

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

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS

In response to legislation like SB1143, 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

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

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

WHAT’S NEXT

SB1143 moves to the House. Once it receives a committee assignment, it will need to get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Arizona Senate Passes Bill to Ban Credit Card Codes that Track Gun Purchases first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Texas House Committee Passes Bill to Create Process to End State Enforcement of Some Federal Acts

Mike Maharrey — Fri, 07 Mar 2025 22:50:20 +0000

AUSTIN, Texas (March 7, 2025) – On Monday, a Texas Senate committee overwhelmingly passed a bill to create a process in state law to end state and local enforcement of some federal actions.

Sen. Phil King filed Senate Bill 707 (SB707). Under the proposed law, the Texas legislature would be empowered to pass a concurrent resolution declaring a “federal directive” unconstitutional and prohibiting a state or local government officer or employee from enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of the same.

Federal directives include federal laws, executive orders, and agency rules, policies, orders, or standards. Any federal directive that the legislature finds “infringes on a power or right reserved to the state by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; or prohibits or limits the ability of this state to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the people of this state; or promote the prosperity of the people of this state” would be subject to such a resolution.

On March 3, the Senate State Affairs Committee reported the bill favorably by a 10-1 vote, moving it forward in the legislative process.

LEGAL BASIS

Under the Constitution, states have the legal authority to bar their agents from enforcing any federal action.

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

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

As the 3rd Chief Justice, Oliver Ellsworth put it, “This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity”

Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or regulatory program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five major Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842.

Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.

The anti-commandeering doctrine affirms that state and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or regulatory programs, regardless of their constitutionality.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB707 can now move to the full Senate for further consideration.

The post Texas House Committee Passes Bill to Create Process to End State Enforcement of Some Federal Acts first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

To the Governor: Utah Bill Would Ban Warrantless Reverse-Keyword Search Surveillance

Mike Maharrey — Fri, 07 Mar 2025 22:28:54 +0000

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (March 7, 2025) – Yesterday, the Utah Senate gave final approval to a bill that would bar reverse key-word searches without a warrant in most cases, sending the legislation to the Governor’s desk.

In effect, reverse-keyword searches are a massive fishing expedition, subjecting hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people to police scrutiny simply for conducting an internet search.

On March 6, the Senate passed HB273 by a 24-0 vote. It previously cleared the Senate by a 69-0 vote. The bill will now go to Gov. Spencer Cox’s desk for his consideration.

The proposed law stipulates that in a reverse-keyword search warrant, “the court shall require that all electronic device data provided pursuant to the warrant be anonymized before the reverse-keyword information or reverse-location information is released to the law enforcement agency.”

Reverse keyword data would also be subject to the same retention, disclosure and destruction requirements as geofence location data.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS

The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of surveillance information gathered at the state and local level.

WHAT’S NEXT

Gov. Spencer will have 20 days from the date the legislature adjourns to sign or veto HB273. If he takes no action, it will become law without his signature. The general session was scheduled to end March 7.

The post To the Governor: Utah Bill Would Ban Warrantless Reverse-Keyword Search Surveillance first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

3 Simple Steps to DESTROY the Constitution (They’re Already Doing It!)

Michael Boldin — Fri, 07 Mar 2025 21:32:59 +0000

Destroying the Constitution and liberty might be easier than you think. In this episode, learn exactly how it could happen – hypothetically speaking, of course. It only takes three simple steps, and by the end, you will hopefully see just how dangerously effective this method can be. Buckle up – this one hits close to home!

Path to Liberty: March 7, 2025

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Episode – Necessary and Proper: The Big Lie That Unleashed Big Government

United States v. Miller (1939)

Episode – A Weapon to Destroy Freedom: Founders’ Forgotten Warnings

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to Abigail Adams (11 Sept 1804)

Lysander Spooner – A Defence for Fugitive Slaves (1850)

Thomas Jefferson – Kentucky Resolutions (10 Nov 1798)

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany (4 Apr 1819)

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 3 Simple Steps to DESTROY the Constitution (They’re Already Doing It!) first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Florida Bill Would Make Gold and Silver Legal Tender

Mike Maharrey — Thu, 06 Mar 2025 02:37:38 +0000

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (Mar. 5, 2025) – A bill filed in the Florida House would officially recognize gold and silver as legal tender and repeal state taxes on their use and exchange. Passage into law would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

Rep. Doug Bankson and Rep. Monique Miller filed House Bill 999 (H999). Under the proposed law, “specie legal tender” would be recognized as legal tender for the “payment of debts, public charges, taxes, or dues.”

The passage of H999 would make Florida the sixth state to recognize gold and silver as legal tender, as they always should have been doing. Utah led the way, reestablishing constitutional money in 2011. Wyoming, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana have since joined.

IN PRACTICE

Practically speaking, this would allow Florida residents to use gold or silver 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.

GOLD CONTRACT CLAUSE

Beyond the provisions to make gold and silver legal tender, H999 includes language recognizing gold or silver contract clauses.

“Unless specifically provided by the State Constitution or general law or by contract, a person may not compel another person to tender specie or to accept specie as legal tender.”

REMOVING TAXES

H999 would effectively repeal all state taxes on the purchase or use of specie.

In effect it would repeal the state’s capital gains tax on gold and silver bullion.

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

BACKGROUND

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

WHAT’S NEXT

H999 will be referred to a House committee where it will need to get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

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

Defend the Guard Act: Michigan Bills Would End Unconstitutional Deployments

Mike Maharrey — Thu, 06 Mar 2025 02:32:34 +0000

LANSING, Mich. (March 5, 2025) – Bills filed in the Michigan House would prohibit the state’s National Guard from being deployed into “active duty combat” unless Congress issues a declaration of war or calls the Guard into service for one of three constitutionally authorized purposes.

Rep. Steve Carra filed House Bill 4163 (HB4163) and Rep. Dylan Wegela filed House Bill 4164 (HB4164). Together, the bills would create the Michigan Defend the Guard Act. The law would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the Michigan National Guard into “active duty combat” unless the United States Congress passes “an official declaration of war” as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, or Congress “has taken an official action under Clause 15 of Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States.”

HB4164 would establish definitions within an existing Michigan statute. Specifically, it would define “active duty combat” as “participating in or performing any of the following active services in the service of the United States.”

An armed conflict.
A hazardous service relating to an armed conflict in a foreign country.
A duty through an instrumentality of war.

Residents of Michigan can take action to help the Defend the Guard Act move forward at this link.

IN EFFECT

More specifically, Michigan National Guard troops have participated in missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and elsewhere.

MILITIA CLAUSES

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

DECLARE WAR

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

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

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

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

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

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

DUTY

McGeehan served as an Air Force intelligence officer in Afghanistan and has sponsored similar legislation in his state since 2016.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB4163 and HB4164 were referred to the House Committee on Government Operations where they must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process. Residents of Michigan can take action to help the Defend the Guard Act move forward at this link.

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

Constitutional Money Act Clears Missouri House Committee

TAC News — Wed, 05 Mar 2025 23:20:30 +0000

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Mar. 5, 2024) – Yesterday, a House committee advanced a bill that 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.

Rep. Michael Davis filed a similar bill, House Bill 630 (HB630). It includes the same language as HB433 – and both are a companion to Senate Bill 25 (SB25).

On Feb. 25, the House Government Efficiency Committee held a public hearing on both bills. This is an important first step in the legislative process. There were 60 witness application forms in support of the bills and only one in opposition. On Mar. 4, the committee approved the bills by a vote of 14-4, with HB433 now being the primary vehicle for further consideration in the full House.

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 the Constitutional Money Act 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

This 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.

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

REMOVING TAXES

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

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.”

WHAT’S NEXT

HB433 will now move to the House Rules committee, where it must pass by a simple majority before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Constitutional Money Act Clears Missouri House Committee first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Defend the Guard Act Passes Arizona Senate

Michael Boldin — Wed, 05 Mar 2025 22:19:16 +0000

PHOENIX, Ariz. (Mar. 5, 2025) – The Arizona Defend the Guard Act took a major step forward today, passing the state Senate by a vote of .

Sen. Wendy Rogers along with a large number of cosponsors filed the Arizona Defend the Guard Act as Senate Bill 1495 (SB1495). Today, the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 16-13, sending the measure to the House for further consideration. Residents of Arizona can take action to help the Defend the Guard Act move forward at this link.

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

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

MILITIA CLAUSES

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

DECLARE WAR

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

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

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

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

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

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

DUTY

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

IN EFFECT

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

WHAT’S NEXT

SB1495 will now move to the House, where it will first need to pass through the committee process before the full chamber has an opportunity to concur. Residents of Arizona can take action to help the Defend the Guard Act move forward at this link.

The post Defend the Guard Act Passes Arizona Senate first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Alabama Senate Unanimously Passes Bill to Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 05 Mar 2025 20:10:23 +0000

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (March 5, 2025) – Yesterday, the Alabama Senate unanimously passed a bill to recognize gold and silver as legal tender. If encated, it would set the stage for the people to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

Sen. Tim Melson filed Senate Bill 130 (SB130). Under the Alabama Legal Tender Act, “any refined gold or silver bullion, specie, or coin that has been stamped, marked, or imprinted with its weight and purity” would be recognized as legal tender in the state.

On March 4, the Senate passed SB130 by a 31-0 vote.

GOLD CONTRACT CLAUSE

Beyond the provisions to make gold and silver legal tender, SB130 includes language recognizing gold or silver contract clauses.

“No person shall be required to offer or accept any recognized legal tender … except as specifically provided for by contract or otherwise required by law.”

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

IN PRACTICE

Passage of SB130 would represent another step against the fiat-based Federal Reserve system by creating a foundation to pull the rug out from under it on the state and local levels.

In essence, it would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

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

BACKGROUND

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

WHAT’S NEXT

SB130 now moves to the House for further consideration. It was referred to the House Financial Services Committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Alabama Senate Unanimously Passes Bill to Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

The Forgotten Boston Massacre Speech They Wanted to Silence

Michael Boldin — Wed, 05 Mar 2025 19:49:57 +0000

In 1771, James Lovell stood before a massive crowd in Boston to deliver a speech commemorating the first anniversary of the Boston Massacre on March 5, 1770. His oration left no room for compromise: warning against standing armies, defending the people’s right to bear arms, declaring freedom as a birthright, and rejecting Parliament’s authority over the colonies entirely. This episode explores James Lovell’s powerful speech, its aftermath, and a background story about Paul Revere’s role in the commemoration of the Boston Massacre.

Path to Liberty: March 5, 2025

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Dave Benner – Today in History: The Massacre in Boston

JL Bell – “The Town make choice of a proper Person to deliver an Oration”

Stuart McManus – Late-Humanism and Revolutionary Eloquence: James Lovell and His 1771 Boston Massacre Oration

James Lovell – Massacre Day Oration (2 Apr 1771)

Blackstone – Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books, vol. 1

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

Thomas Hutchinson – Letter to John Pownall (18 Apr 1771)

Dave Roos – History.com

Boston Gazette (11 Mar 1771)

Previous Massacre Day Episodes

John Hancock (1774)

Joseph Warren (1772)

Benjamin Church (1773)

Joseph Warren (1775)

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 The Forgotten Boston Massacre Speech They Wanted to Silence first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Defend the Guard Act Clears Montana House Panel

Michael Boldin — Wed, 05 Mar 2025 03:40:04 +0000

HELENA, Mont. (Mar. 4, 2025) – A Montana House committee approved a bill that would prohibit the state’s National Guard from being deployed into “active duty combat” unless Congress issues a declaration of war or calls the Guard into service for one of three constitutionally authorized purposes.

Rep. Lee Deming filed House Bill 404 (HB404). The Montana Defend the Guard Act would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the Montana National Guard into federal service, including “active duty combat” unless the United States Congress passes “a declaration of war” as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, or if Congress takes “an official action pursuant to Article I, section 8, clause 15, of the United States Constitution.”

Today, the House Energy, Technology and Federal Relations approved the measure by a vote of 8-6, sending it to the full House for further consideration.

“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.

They would specifically allow for the federalization of Montana National Guard units for training, responding to domestic emergencies, homeland defense activities, and counter-drug operations within the U.S. and its territories.

Residents of Montana who support the legislation can take action to help it move forward at this link.

MILITIA CLAUSES

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

DECLARE WAR

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

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

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

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

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

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

DUTY

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

Webster made this observation in an 1814 speech on the floor of Congress where he urged actions similar to the Montana 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.”

IN EFFECT

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

WHAT’S NEXT

HB404 will now move to the full house, where it will need to pass through 2nd and 3rd readings in order to move forward in the legislative process. Residents of Montana can take action to help it move forward at this link.

The post Defend the Guard Act Clears Montana House Panel first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Arizona Senate Passes Bill to Block CBDC as Legal Tender and Money

TAC News — Wed, 05 Mar 2025 02:02:41 +0000

PHOENIX, Ariz. (Mar. 4, 2025) – On Monday, the Arizona Senate passed a bill that would expressly exclude a central bank digital currency (CBDC) from the definition of money and legal tender in the state, creating potentially significant roadblocks to its use as such in the state.

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

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

On March 3, the Senate passed SB1095 by a vote of 17-12.

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

IN PRACTICE

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

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

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

CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCIES (CBDC)

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

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

WHAT’S NEXT

SB1095 will now move to the House, where it will need to pass through the committee process in order to move forward to the full chamber.

The post Arizona Senate Passes Bill to Block CBDC as Legal Tender and Money first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Arizona Senate Passes Bill to Decriminalize Suppressors and Prohibit State Enforcement of Federal Restrictions

TAC News — Tue, 04 Mar 2025 17:10:31 +0000

PHOENIX, Ariz. (Mar. 4, 2025) – Yesterday, the Arizona Senate passed a bill that would decriminalize firearm sound suppressors in the state. If passed into law, it would automatically prohibit state and local enforcement of federal regulations on suppressors under an existing Arizona law passed in 2021.

Sen. Wendy Rogers filed Senate Bill 1014 (SB1014). The legislation would remove “a device that is designed, made or adapted to muffle the report of a firearm,” from the state’s list of “prohibited weapons.” In effect, this would decriminalize the manufacture and possession of firearm sound suppressors, commonly referred to as “silencers,” in the state.

On Mar. 3, the Senate passed SB1014 by a 17-11 vote.

ENDING STATE ENFORCEMENT

Under the Arizona 2nd Amendment Firearm Freedom Act passed in 2021, the state and all of its political subdivisions are prohibited from “using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the United States government that is inconsistent with any law” of the state of Arizona regarding the regulation of firearms.

Because SB1014 would eliminate state-level regulation of firearm sound suppressors, Arizona law would instantly classify federal suppressor regulations as “inconsistent” with state policy, making them unenforceable by any state or local agency.

No additional action would be required – Arizona officials would be prohibited from participating in any way, including investigations, arrests, or prosecutions related to federal suppressor laws.

FEDERAL REGULATIONS

Suppressors simply muffle the sound of a gun. They do not literally silence firearms. Nevertheless, the federal government heavily regulates silencers under the National Firearms Act.

The feds charge a $200 tax on the purchase of the devices. Buying one also requires months-long waits after filing extensive paperwork with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Under current federal law, it is illegal to manufacture, sell, or possess a suppressor without going through this burdensome federal process.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT

Federal enforcement efforts, including gun control, rely heavily on state participation. In fact, the federal government depends on state cooperation to enforce most of its laws and programs, including gun control. During the 2013 partial government shutdown, the National Governors’ Association noted, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”

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

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

LEGAL BASIS

Under the Constitution, states have the legal authority to bar their agents from enforcing federal gun control.

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

As the 3rd Chief Justice, Oliver Ellsworth put it, “This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity”

Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.

The anti-commandeering doctrine affirms that state and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or regulatory programs, regardless of their constitutionality.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB1014 will move to the House where it must first get a committee hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Arizona Senate Passes Bill to Decriminalize Suppressors and Prohibit State Enforcement of Federal Restrictions first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Oklahoma Committee Advances Bill to Prohibit Credit Card Codes that Track Firearms Purchases

Michael Boldin — Tue, 04 Mar 2025 03:30:34 +0000

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. (Mar. 3, 2025) – A bill to ban financial institutions from using credit card merchant codes to track firearm and ammunition purchases cleared an Oklahoma Senate panel on Monday.

Senate Bill 16 (SB16), the Oklahoma Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act, would prohibit payment card networks from requiring or encouraging merchant category codes that distinguish firearm retailers from other businesses.

“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.”

Sponsored by Sen. Micheal Bergstrom, the bill also bars financial institutions from assigning such codes themselves. Additionally, it explicitly bans both government and private entities from maintaining any list or registry of privately owned firearms.

The Senate Business and Insurance Committee approved SB16 by a vote of 8-2, sending it to the full Senate for further consideration.

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

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

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

WHAT’S NEXT

SB16 will now be eligible for debate and vote in the full Senate.

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