live_tv
Livestream Starting Soon
00
Hours
:
00
Minutes
:
00
Seconds
Up next in 10
Jon Roland lecture on which usurpations are susceptible to nullification and which are not. Austin Constitution meetup, Aug. 23, 2010.
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:05
you're really this is the August 23rd 2010 Meetup of
0:12
the Austin Constitution Meetup Group I'm John Roland
0:17
the topic this evening is what can be nullified
0:23
if you've been with us for some of our previous meetups
0:28
you know that we've discussed The Proposal
0:33
for setting up super grand juries
0:39
but are sometimes colloquially called The Nullification commissions
0:45
and the official title I propose is a federal action review Commission
0:51
but whatever we call them they are essentially a
0:57
body 23 persons who hears complaints from citizens
1:06
about Federal violations of the Constitution
1:12
and if it finds that the Constitution has been violated
1:19
it can issue a finding to that effect and the effect of that finding
1:26
is to require All State agencies of contractors to refuse to cooperate
1:34
with the federal government on that area of user patient
1:42
and it also encourages citizens of the state to also refuse to cooperate with it
1:51
in any way that may arise in the course of their daily lives
1:57
in fact it puts the entire state and its people
2:02
into a civil disobedience group
2:09
instead of individuals refusing to cooperate individually across the small
2:16
groups and being picked off by a much larger federal government
2:21
it puts the entire state into a concerted effort
2:27
and the thought is that if enough states can do that they can effectively bring the user
2:35
patients to a hall so we're going to be doing this evening
2:40
is examining what user patients are particularly susceptible to state-led
2:47
nullification not all of them are so we need to pick our battles carefully
2:55
to figure out which user patients can be addressed
3:00
effectively in this way and which ones may require other approaches
3:10
we're going to be following brought generally a certain analytic outline in this discussion
3:17
first of all we're going to identify the use of patient itself we're not going to spend a lot of time
3:23
explaining why it's a usurpation if you've been to constitution.org or
3:30
I've viewed my previous videos you should ask an idea of why these things
3:37
are unauthorized or unconstitutional
3:42
then in general we'll cite the alleged
3:47
Authority for the user evasion what do feds claim is their Authority for doing
3:54
that we're not accepting their that claim but
3:59
we are examining it because it may provide a clue to what we need to do about it
4:05
then we're going to be looking at the impact of this user patient on people
4:11
how it affects their lives and uh
4:16
find that next we're going to look at what kind of cooperation is required at
4:23
the state level by state government by state businesses and by state
4:31
citizens next we're going to try to look at the
4:37
intervention points available with and without the proposed nullification
4:42
Commission now there have been a number of proposals for the state legislature to
4:49
Simply adopt legislation directly to try to block Federal user patients
4:56
but for a variety of reasons that will usually not work
5:01
once in a while it might but by and large
5:08
is not an approach that's feasible for most of these violations
5:16
think of then we're going to be looking at likely scenarios how
5:22
these efforts might play out on the ground from day to day from week
5:29
to week month to month year to year looking at the ways in which they
5:35
interact with each other the various political forces involved
5:40
what we can expect to build and that we have support and what kind of opposition
5:45
we may expect
5:51
so let's look first at some historical examples of
5:57
abuses which were faced with
6:04
some kind of state level opposition the first was in 18 1798 the Alien and
6:13
Sedition Acts these were acts that admitted
6:19
empower the president to deport ERS
6:24
arbitrarily without due process and the Sedition Acts made it a crime to
6:31
criticize government officials and was used against several of the
6:36
leading newspapers at the time especially one
6:42
or which the publisher was a guy named beige who was the grandson of Benjamin
6:48
Franklin and that newspaper criticized the president then President John Adams
6:56
so uh the result was a firestorm of opposition led by Thomas Jefferson and James
7:03
Madison they left with a Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798
7:10
the Kentucky Resolutions of 1799 and the Virginia report of 1800.
7:18
now in the Kentucky Resolutions
7:24
nullification although not by name was proposed
7:29
uh it was it was mentioned in 1799
7:34
but uh most only the states of Kentucky and
7:42
Virginia were really on board for that still they didn't have an influence
7:48
and uh it was arguably enough that the attempt
7:54
to balance and God's Jefferson elected president in 1800
8:00
and caused the his supporters to be swept into Congress
8:06
that most of the comments thrown out and uh he proceeded to undo the damage of the
8:15
alienist Edition Acts pardoning those who had been convicted and so forth
8:21
the uh but the plan was set down to plan
8:27
the idea of state-led civil disobedience which has come to be called
8:32
nullification the next major timing came up
8:38
and this is there were other times in between but one of them is often discussed was when South Carolina
8:46
passed a law uh blocking enforcement of the Tariff
8:56
for the time which put a severe tax on
9:01
imported goods needed by the south in order to favor more expensive
9:09
manufacturers in the northern states this affected the ability of the
9:16
Southern platters to make a living to make a profit
9:22
and it was clearly designed to favor one section of the country over another
9:30
contrary to the Constitutional provision that requires that all legislation and
9:40
in particular taxing taxing legislation shall be uh
9:48
passed and applied only in a way that provides for the general welfare and
9:55
does not Advantage one section or state over another so they can South Carolina considered
10:03
that tariff to be unconstitutional of those grounds now the way that was resolved is that
10:10
the the South Carolina resistance was considered important
10:16
enough because it was threatened because other states threatened to adopt similar measures
10:21
that Congress backed down and greatly reduced the Tariff down to a fairly low
10:28
level and uh so South Carolina didn't have to follow through on its threat
10:37
but the reason why South Carolina's action could be
10:42
effective in that In 1832 but because in those days the federal
10:48
government depended for the most part on the cooperation of State officials
10:56
to enforce Federal Acts and if a state if and its officials
11:03
resolutely refuse to cooperate they can pretty well end any of the efforts of
11:10
the federal government to enforce its laws uh that was later to change as we as we
11:18
will see in later the Fugitive Slave Acts
11:25
between about 1850 and 1861 uh were
11:32
acts which provided for returning fugitive slaves to their owners
11:40
by the states insisted on holding jury trials to determine whether the slaves
11:46
were in fact slaves the legislaves they said well we have free blacks we
11:53
can't just have somebody coming into our state claiming their slave and you know
11:59
yanking you know and kidnapping them and taking them back to the summer the slavery is on Southern State we have to
12:07
hold a hearing with a jury to decide you know what's going on
12:12
and the problem with that then is that the southern for you fine is that some
12:18
Northern juries refused to find in favor of the slave owners
12:24
so they engaged in nullification of the Fugitive Slave Acts
12:30
and this week was a major source of irritation that led to secession of the
12:36
Civil War together during the prohibition era of 1919 to
12:44
1933 there was also a growing problem
12:49
that uh juries began increasingly to refuse to
12:56
convict people for violations of
13:01
alcohol prohibition and without the ability to convict anyone of
13:10
prohibition violations it became extremely difficult to effectively
13:16
enforce prohibition and finally uh
13:23
the peoples realized their mistake and repeal the amendment
13:31
now we currently have two areas of contention that are particularly
13:38
instructive the first is the real ID Act the second is medical marijuana
13:46
we'll be looking to those in a little bit more detail
13:53
the real ID act requires states to issue driver's licenses and state ID that can
14:00
form the federal requirements for centralized identification but with our funding to the states to
14:07
pay for it the Congress figured well the state's have to issue
14:13
driver licenses or state ID anyway so let's just impose a requirement on the
14:21
way they do it to require that they include things like Social Security numbers and
14:29
generally are tied in to a central federal data database
14:37
that identifies everyone and of course as anyone who may have
14:44
seen the movie uh Sarah starring Sandra Bullock
14:51
uh in which her identity was stolen and given to someone else because of the
14:57
ability of some someone in a position to control identities
15:03
can realize the idea of having identity under the control of a single Central
15:09
Authority is extremely dangerous to Liberty
15:15
the alleged Authority for the real IV Act is to withhold entry
15:21
into Federal facilities and on a commercial aircraft to those not having the ID
15:29
it was thought that by withholding those privileges
15:37
the people would demand that their states implement the real ID Act
15:44
but that hasn't happened in fact the people told a lot a lot of
15:50
told their states do not cooperate we do not want you to issue uh
15:58
ID that complies with a real idea Act and a lot of States including Texas
16:04
started resisting most of them using the excuse that they
16:12
can't afford it that's too expensive that with our funding we're just not
16:17
going to do it so uh and there's even a Supreme Court case
16:23
that uh sides with state and local officials who refuse to
16:31
administer Federal statutes without being paid for it
16:39
now that alleged authority to control aircraft
16:45
was based upon two clauses the Commerce Clause and the necessary
16:52
and proper clause and by one Court president
16:57
primarily one wickard B filter which we'll just refer to here as wicker
17:04
Roscoe filiburn was a farmer who uh was prosecuted criminally for
17:11
eating his own corn unless he grew in excess of the uh price
17:19
and production controls I imposed on his farm he argued that since it was not uh
17:29
did not enter Commerce that it was not properly subject to
17:35
regulation by the federal government it was produced in his State consumed in
17:41
his State he wasn't sold to anybody if it hadn't been produced he wouldn't have sold it uh
17:48
and if he hadn't he eaten his own party he wouldn't have bought it from somebody somebody else
17:54
well the Supreme Court in 1942 did not support
18:00
filbert and it established the president on
18:06
which almost all Federal
18:11
criminal legislation has since been based if you hear about the over criminalization or the Federal
18:18
criminalization of everything
18:23
that's mainly based upon that one Court decision wicker
18:29
which most constitutional Scholars that I respect consider to have been wrongly
18:35
decided
18:41
so the situation we had with real ID now is that many states are refusing to
18:48
funding compliance but some are complied so we have a mixed situation
18:55
if just one state refused it could probably be isolated
19:00
and uh Forest into submission
19:05
but it's enough States so it indicates that any system of state-led
19:15
uh non-compliance civil disobedience
19:20
needs to involve more than one state if it's to be effective
19:25
one is not enough for all 50 is probably Out Of Reach
19:31
but it may be feasible with 10 15 states
19:37
doesn't have to be a majority especially if they're the larger States
19:43
now the feds are ending it withholding funds to States for other purposes unless they
19:51
comply taking advantage of the economic distress
19:57
a lot of the states are knocking on the doors of Congress looking for bailouts
20:02
and Congress is liable to say well if you want money from us we want you to go
20:08
along with real ID so of course Texas is not in that
20:15
decision and several other states are not but it does indicate that the a
20:28
use of extortion in that way is clearly unconstitutional
20:35
and needs to be resisted on the other hand if you were to try to
20:42
the state or for that matter our private citizen
20:47
were to try to sue and some of them have
20:53
to block real ID that generally get knocked out for lack of standing
21:01
back in 1923 the courts adopted the doctrine that if you haven't been personally
21:07
injured we don't want to hear from you we don't want to hear we don't want to
21:13
issue advisory opinions on what statutes are and are not constitutional
21:20
uh we don't want you running to the courts every time you lose in Congress we want
21:27
you to fight your battles with Congress and get and settle them there and only
21:34
come to us when uh you know you have a personal injury
21:41
well that's not the standard the doctrine that was
21:46
intended by the founders they clearly intended that any citizen
21:52
should have the top right to go to court and get at least a declaratory judgment
21:58
perhaps injunctively if he anticipated
22:03
unconstitutional and legislation but since the decision in question
22:10
uh probably had me melon in 1923 the Supreme Court and federal courts
22:17
have been refusing to hear cases of that kind
22:22
and a companion case melon Lee uh
22:27
you know for Massachusetts to be valid held by the state may not represent one
22:35
of his citizens and the rights of those citizens it used to be that the state could do
22:42
that if you go to court in what's called a uh
22:48
in parents patriotic in other words they could stand for the
22:53
citizen and defend his rights in federal court and in Massachusetts V melon the Supreme
23:01
Court said no citizens have to come and uh
23:06
conduct their own losses you can't do it for them now I didn't say that a state couldn't
23:13
pay for the citizens lawyers it just cannot actually provide speak
23:20
for them in the name of the state
23:25
now where do we stand at this point well we have an ass still on the books but
23:30
too many states blocking compliance so it's a legal legal limbo
23:36
and what we can expect in a situation like that is for the feds to try to
23:42
ratchet compliance to pick away at the resistance picking it off is state by
23:49
state until they get it's down to uh
23:55
to a few states to be able to sustain it and then Force the rest into compliance
24:01
so this situation is still unsatisfactory
24:09
now now where I would realize these Dan if we have a nullification Commission
24:19
well first of all the citizen could have complained to the Nullification commission before the real
24:26
IDU pact was passed there's nothing about a grand jury
24:33
which is essentially what it is that says that it won't hear complaints
24:39
about things that haven't happened yet uh grand juries are very well suited to
24:48
they can investigate anything they want to including things that may be far in
24:54
the future and they don't have to limit themselves to cases in which somebody's actually
25:02
been injured now it would not be appropriate for it
25:08
to find the ACT null if it hadn't been passed yet but it could conduct hearings and call
25:13
witnesses now those Witnesses could include both
25:19
proponents and opponents of the ACT now of course the proponents might
25:26
refuse to testify most of them are out of state
25:31
and Texas is not going to be able to go out to Washington DC and drag them back to
25:38
testify but it can take note of the fact
25:44
that they refuse to testify and decide the point the argument without them
25:50
so they were probably con being confronted with uh
25:56
the possibility that the state could declare it unconstitutional uh they
26:03
might want to show up and try to argue for why it is constitutional
26:09
now you notice that there's a you're beginning to notice or should that there's an important difference
26:16
between the kind of nullification commission we're proposing and that of a
26:21
Committee hearing in Congress having helped
26:27
run committee hearings in Congress myself I know how stacked they are
26:35
the Congress is not really in general interested in getting information
26:41
by having Witnesses testified before it that's mostly a facade
26:48
uh the real information on which it makes decisions it gets through other
26:55
channels now that's just a way by which it can line up people and supporters of the
27:03
position and maybe if you had in opposition to it who are carefully selected to uh produce a overall effect
27:13
that the powers that be in Congress wanted to so it is not a an objective impartial
27:20
process and the idea of the Nullification commission is to provide an impartial
27:28
Forum in which the merits of the initial can be debated
27:35
now what would have happened to the real ID Act well if a state nullification commission
27:44
and especially several of them had decided to hold hearings on it
27:51
faced with likely nullification the ACT would probably have been withdrawn
27:59
it just you know Congress does not like to pass things that are going to generate a
28:08
lot of opposition it could take a certain amount of heat but if it's cut but it's usually
28:15
counting on uh private groups to be the source of opposition
28:22
and if it's facing an entire state or several States
28:27
that changes the balance considerably and makes it a much more likely that
28:35
they would cave in now let's get let's look at medical
28:41
marijuana it's illegal under Federal Acts
28:49
based upon the Commerce necessary and proper Clauses and wicker to be filbert
28:57
however some states legalized medical marijuana
29:02
under their own laws now
29:08
we have a conflict developing some guys think they're authorized or even
29:13
licensed by state law while the feds are trying to prosecute them
29:20
from the feds prosecuted for what the state authorized we began to see juries refusing to
29:26
convict by having the stage
29:33
legalize medical marijuana it informed the public of the issue
29:40
to a sufficient degree that when they began to be pulled for jury duty uh it
29:47
would became hard to get a jury panel that would convict
29:53
so this decided reads it fairly recently
29:58
to stop Prosecuting in those States but they still can
30:06
the Nullification commission would have gotten I've gotten that result faster and it would have gotten it for all
30:14
states not just for a few States eventually
30:19
particularly if the example of a few States using a
30:25
nullification commission caused the idea to spread until most if not all states
30:30
insisted on having their own or their citizens insisted on that they
30:37
have one now let's look at the health care act
30:43
which it has a longer name but we'll just abbreviate it here for this
30:49
discussion this is the one that has led to a lot of
30:54
Demands for nullification unfortunately it's the one thing
31:01
that does not lend itself to nullification
31:06
as well as some of the other to use their patients do
31:12
you understand why we need to examine the act itself
31:18
but the ACT does that so many people have said there are many things that have people
31:23
have said about it but the one in particular is it imaginates people to
31:29
get health insurance or pay AFI
31:34
uh now some have proposed state legislation to
31:42
block collection of the fines even making in a criminal offense for a
31:48
federal agent to try to collect them the problem is that those proposals are
31:57
designed for a different act than Congress actually passed
32:04
in the act as specifically says that the IRS which is charged with collecting the
32:11
fines may not file liens or take collected actions for the fines
32:20
so we have a fundamental problem if the IRS is not going to be able to
32:28
file liens or take collection actions uh
32:35
how is it going to collect them and what could the state do to block that
32:44
effort well unfortunately the IRS has other ways of
32:50
collecting money from people it doesn't have to live with you on bank accounts
32:56
or file liens on real estate or anything like that
33:02
it can just have employers deduct
33:07
withholding from people's wages and then charge
33:15
the money first collected for the fines leaving them a balanced owing
33:24
so what is the state going to do about that is it going to Block income tax collection because now the feds will say
33:30
no no we're not trying to collect on a health insurance fine
33:37
we're collecting regular income tax is the state really going to try to
33:44
prevent that if it is then it cleanses
33:50
it's it's up against the entire federal income tax system
33:56
so let's look at the income tax and the fed and the Nullification division
34:06
now it's a concern would be possible and in fact it would likely happen let a state citizen would complain
34:13
that the federal income tax on labor is unconstitutional
34:19
now you notice that I restricted someone here I'm not examining in taxes on
34:25
corporations or inheritances or on a lot of other things we're just focusing on
34:32
one thing uh income tax and labor in particular in wages because the feds
34:40
have a withholding system they employ impose on employers which can enable
34:46
them to get the money first and so that you're put into the position of having
34:51
to argue with them to get it back
34:57
um the Nullification Commission could hear issues in the ways of
35:03
Congress and of course refused to and find it unconstitutional right now Congress is not going to find
35:10
the income tax unconstitutional and these are the federal courts
35:15
it's not going to happen uh
35:23
but what in what ways does the IRS depend on
35:28
cooperation by the states well if files liens with State Court
35:33
clers which the Nullification commission could block
35:40
however that would not prevent federal agents
35:45
from collecting anyway without the leads
35:51
uh State agencies and contractors withhold taxes and the Nullification commission could
35:58
tell them don't collect withholding taxes
36:04
which would put them in direct conflict with the federal government
36:10
uh and the question then occurs if the
36:16
state refuses to conduct withhold taxes
36:21
then I guess the feds could withhold money that they pay the states which they're not supposed to send them
36:28
anyway but you can see that this would be heading toward a kind of a severe
36:34
confrontation now
36:40
the IRS attaches money from bank accounts but the Nullification commission could have stayed State Bank
36:47
Charter suspended in other words you can tell Banks do not
36:53
uh give the money to the feds to the IRS
36:58
protect your customers and don't go along with what the IRS asked you to do
37:06
again direct confrontation
37:11
and of course if banks have other Alternatives they could recharger with the federal government
37:16
then you'd have a problem of the state having to take the position that a bank
37:22
can't do business in its state without being chartered by the state and they're just ignoring the
37:29
federal Charter so you know we're talking about some serious confrontation here
37:36
uh the Nullification commission could encourage juries not to convict
37:43
but the IRS still has civil actions
37:48
the IRS answer money that makes you sue them to get it back
37:54
and it's such a civil case a jury is possible but it is for all purposes all
38:00
practical purposes blood it's very hard to win a case like that
38:06
because they again the federal judges will not let you argue most of the
38:13
issues the legal and constitutional issues due to the jury
38:18
so without the Nullification Commission most people cannot afford the cost of a
38:26
suit like that it could cost them a million dollars they might have to take it all the way
38:31
to the Supreme Court and that would only be worthwhile if the
38:38
amount of taxes that issue was less than a million well that might be okay for a few really
38:46
big you know really wealthy litigants
38:53
but for most people they just couldn't afford to do that however the Nullification commission
38:59
could authorize paying attorneys to defend the citizen
39:05
even a little one and confront the IRS and the federal
39:11
government with having to defend hundreds or thousands of losses
39:19
for that would cost them a lot more money than they're collecting
39:24
so they would be faced with going in the hole on litigation
39:30
uh this is a an example of a of the
39:35
realization that a lot of people come to or they examine how the justice system
39:40
works that more often than not the outcome is determined not by the legal or
39:47
evidentiary merits but by on who runs out of money first
39:53
and the the government by making it
39:59
necessary for people to spend more money than the amount of money at issue is is
40:05
worth can effectively avoid a lot of litigation that would otherwise
40:12
drain their resources by reversing
40:18
the cost Factor by and of course the states would have
40:24
to put out a lot of money to make this work but if they're willing to do that
40:30
then they could put the federal government in a position where it would cost it more money than it would get
40:37
through trying to collect taxes in this way
40:48
so at this point I think we're beginning to see that
40:54
if the federal income tax on labor is to ever be tackled by The Nullification
41:02
commission is probably not one of the first user basins in nullification
41:08
commission should tackle it could hold hearings
41:13
but defer the finding putting pressure on Congress to replace the federal
41:19
income tax on labor in other words a grand jury does not
41:26
necessarily have to uh produce a finding
41:32
what's called a presenter he can hold hearings I can hold here lots of hearings
41:39
month after month year after year through successive grand juries
41:45
successive nullification commissions building up a long record of testimony
41:53
uh which is gradually leads up to the
41:58
risk that eventually it's going to decide to issue a finding and then uh
42:07
let us say the matter would become very interesting
42:13
hearings would provoke public discussion and very likely lead juries to refuse to
42:20
convict even without the finding I would anticipate that a nullification
42:27
commission is going to be newsworthy they might only be they might meet as
42:34
often as once a week but what they produced at a given week would lie very
42:39
likely be something the newspapers would want to cover it would be the topic of
42:45
discussions and discussion forums everywhere people on the street to talk
42:50
about it or people would rally it you know in front of capital staffs on the
42:56
subjects it would lead a general
43:02
buildup of public pressure that you just can't get with private groups alone trying to
43:09
sponsor such efforts and of course without criminal convictions collections would fade
43:18
so you have a problem that if you remove an important tool for enforcement
43:25
you lose the ability to
43:31
use the other tools that they might have
43:42
now let's look at federal education funds
43:49
there are mandates involved in
43:55
education funds received by the federal government by the Department of
44:00
Education but they all depend on the states accepting those funds
44:07
for some not locality directly uh if the states and localities did not
44:14
accept the money they wouldn't be subject to the mandates uh we can argue about the
44:21
constitutionality of using federal funds in this way but
44:27
we can understand that if this does not lend itself to
44:35
litigation our legislation in the usual way
44:42
uh all you can litigate you can elect them could legislative non-acceptance of
44:49
federal money but you can't really challenge the mandates if you do accept the money
44:57
now in the case of Texas the state standards are higher than the federal standards in some areas like civics
45:05
which is one of the reasons why Governor Perry refused the federal money recently uh
45:15
and the states and the federal standards that would go with it
45:20
the Nullification commission could find Federal funding only valid for Melissa
45:28
that would be the most correct uh finding it to make on the subject
45:36
and of course one could certainly find that almost all public education was
45:42
militia training however if public education is militia training
45:49
then it has to be have a focus on training students to be Warriors and
45:56
enforcers of the Constitution uh they can't just be consumers
46:03
mainly going along with what the politicians
46:08
want them to do and believe
46:18
the next issue that's often brought up in this connection is Environmental Protection
46:26
the states and the on the state of the feds differ on the standards
46:32
and I want to argue about what the standards should be but
46:38
the federal APA is based once again on
46:43
the Commerce necessary necessary and proper Clauses and on wickered beef over
46:50
in other words it is based upon Clauses in the Constitution which do not
46:57
authorize then most of what the Environmental Protection Agency does
47:03
one can certainly argue that there should be an Environmental Protection Agency
47:09
uh and a lot of us would entertain amendments of the Constitution giving it
47:16
that Authority the simple fact is that the environment is not Commerce
47:24
and even if it has some effect on Commerce that effect is not sufficient
47:31
to provide Authority for the regulations
47:36
that intrude into all of our lives in the way that those do
47:45
a nullification commission would make businesses have to choose between the
47:51
state standards and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency
47:58
and right now a lot of them support the Federal Environmental Protection
48:05
Agency because the environmental regulations are actually designed with their support
48:13
to suppress their small competitors for the same reason that
48:20
businesses ever since 1886 have supported all kinds of federal
48:26
regulations of quote Commerce unquote uh
48:32
it is easier for large organizations to meet those requirements than for small
48:37
or newer organizations so the Practical effect of it and the
48:43
mean and for their few people I think the main purpose of it is to
48:49
put their small competitors out of business and enable them to
48:54
achieve a monopoly or at least oligopoly over the market
49:02
and one of the major driving courses for corporations to become larger and larger
49:08
and less and less accountable is the effect of regulations suppressing small
49:15
competition uh most federal enforcement however is
49:21
Administrative so jurors do not get to decide except for criminal cases
49:30
and uh that leaves the problem that if a state
49:35
refuses to cooperate with administrative actions
49:42
what can it actually do so that their armies of Administrators many of most
49:49
many if not most of them are not even in the state doing their thing and largely Out Of
49:55
Reach of the state even if it could figure out who who they are
50:01
so uh most of that does not lend itself well to this approach
50:09
now let's look at a favorite which is instructive because it points
50:15
the way to a lot of other Federal user patients gun control
50:24
we've had two major rounds of gun control is federal gun control
50:30
legislation the first was the National Firearms Act
50:35
of 1934. that was based on the tax clause
50:41
basically what they did is imposed attacks
50:46
two hundred dollars was the amount as it turns out on various kinds of firearms
50:52
that Congress wanted to discourage The Possession and use of
50:59
well want to say by today's standard 200 doesn't seem like very much money but it
51:06
was more than the cost of a gun in those days but even so a lot of people might have
51:12
been willing to pay the 200. but Congress did something else indirectly which was sort of clever
51:20
they made it first of all it made it a crime to possess a firearm in which
51:26
attacks have not been paid and then if katria to have the agency
51:32
the Bureau of alcohol and tobacco and firearms refused to collect the tax
51:40
so even if you are willing to pay the 200 tax they wouldn't take your money
51:46
but because now you've disclosed that you have a firearm they'll arrest you and prosecute you and throw you in
51:52
prison for having the firearm and it's not a defense that you offered
51:58
to pay the tax now
52:04
the next major round was a gun control Act of 1968.
52:10
now again this act was not based upon the taxing Clause it was based upon the
52:16
Commerce and necessary and proper Clauses and I'd like her to be filled her and remember wickard was decided in 1942
52:25
which was before 1968 but after 1934
52:31
so the defense had a new tool with wicker and its subsequent Acts that it
52:37
could use to pass all kinds of gun control legislation to make it illegal
52:43
to have all kinds of guns
52:49
now in response to this some states have advanced legislation to exclude
52:56
Interstate firearms from Federal Regulation claiming that if a firearm is
53:04
manufactured within the state sold within the state
53:09
you who use within the state never leaves a state but is not subject to
53:15
Federal Regulation and they intend to sue the feds if they try to impose
53:22
regulations on those firearms the problem is that you run up against a
53:28
problem that we encounter with medical marijuana the feds can just ignore that and prosecute it in their courts
53:38
uh now so the states and so
53:45
the main if we can look to the medical where marijuana
53:51
case of the one the only way that the state could then
53:56
influence the feds would be to influence their people not to convict if they were
54:03
called for jury service um whether
54:09
they could get the uh this to happen
54:16
with the state merely passing legislation however is doubtful
54:22
whereas on the other hand a notification Commission by bringing these things to the
54:29
attention of the public on a weekly basis would have a much better chance of
54:36
mobilizing the citizenry to refuse to convict
54:41
now what else could the states do well the states could refuse to disable the
54:48
right to keep and bear arm for convicts or at least after they served their sentences
54:54
but a lot of people think because of some of
55:00
the language in the act that that that's what the feds are doing is enforcing a
55:07
state disablement of the right to keep in their arms but that that's not what
55:13
they're doing the federal act in 18 USA
55:21
922 essentially takes a position that it doesn't care if a state restores the
55:30
rights to keep and bear arm for convicts that if anyone was convicted of an
55:36
offense for which they could serve a year or more
55:41
regardless of whether it's called a felony or misdemeanor that the federal statute kicks in and
55:50
it's a federal felony to possess it so what they're trying to do is to
55:56
Simply use that they're not using State due process
56:02
as a basis for classifying someone as a criminal
56:07
they are using it as evidence for their own disablement
56:12
but without any kind of due process
56:20
now what else do the states do well the states could license Interstate firearms
56:27
dealers who are not required to be Federal dealers and set up a conflict like that
56:34
for medical marijuana now a lot of us of course States now in
56:39
general do not license firearms dealers a few cases they do
56:45
and a lot of dealers would resist this even claiming it's unconstitutional and
56:51
it is but the the employee here would be to use the state license to set up a
56:59
conflict with the federal government by having conflicting licenses
57:06
uh it likely wouldn't work if it ever came to court but uh he could mobilize public
57:15
opinion and achieve a win in the court of public opinion
57:23
now if a nullification commission could find a lack of a militia
57:28
unconstitutional and in effect declare that all
57:35
non-criminal citizens are law enforcement agents which will make them
57:40
all his officers and in federal statutes there are
57:45
exceptions for peace officers
57:50
the feds generally consider only a few officials to be peace officers but
57:58
there's nothing to prevent a state from declaring everyone a peace officer and
58:03
pretty well shooting down those Federal statutes of course the defense when I turn around
58:09
and amend the statutes but right now that might be a little hard to do in the present political climate
58:16
and of course the Nullification commission could encourage juries not to convey
58:23
so this this area is a little bit messy
58:28
next we turn to money that's one of the key areas that has led
58:34
to a lot of controversy some have proposed nullification of the
58:39
Federal Reserve System but that's a little bit more difficult because strictly speaking the Federal
58:46
Reserve System does not work quite the way especially the state level
58:52
that would lend itself to nullification at the state level
58:59
a citizen complained to the Nullification Commission could bring the finding that only gold
59:04
and silver or legal tender within the state the state would then have to tax and
59:10
span only in gold and silver not in Federal Reserve notes
59:17
civilians would then start demanding debts be paid in gold and silver
59:22
just like the state does and the FEDS would become isolated into
59:30
a Federal Reserve Note Zone they might issue them they might accept them in payment but
59:38
they would have a problem getting the states to go along with anybody
59:45
accepting Federal Reserve notes as payments for federal debts the federal
59:51
government might find itself unable to do business of the state without paying
59:57
the indolence or silver so uh and of course you can see if enough
1:00:04
states did this that the Federal Reserve Note would disappear as currency
1:00:11
currency is after all what people will accept and if people stop accepting Federal
1:00:16
Reserve notes it started demanding gold and silver and if the states back them
1:00:22
up they can make it make it happen
1:00:28
however taking on the entire monetary system at once would backfire
1:00:34
again as I've cautioned throughout a nullification commission has to pay kids
1:00:41
battles carefully it's better to take up a complaint from
1:00:46
one citizen that our Federal Reserve Bank won't redeem a one dollar bill for silver
1:00:52
and threaten the co-op withhold cooperation on something else until the
1:00:58
federal lands and gives them one dollar's worth of silver
1:01:04
now whether the Federal Reserve Bank would do that uh it's hard to say but if I'm a reserve
1:01:10
banks interestingly enough are private organizations they would very likely yield and give
1:01:19
them the guys some a piece of silver it's just not worth it tell them to
1:01:25
fight it then you do it for a ten dollar bill than the 20 then a 50 then 100.
1:01:32
you you would do a lot of have a lot of fanfare when you do that and to graduate
1:01:39
your politicians are good we'll begin to see where all this is going
1:01:46
so this concludes the part of it that I've
1:01:53
done so far as a PowerPoint and we can get involved in the
1:01:58
discussion further of where all this leads us
1:02:04
what kinds of issues what kinds of use or patients does state-led not nullification lead
1:02:11
itself to we pick up a lot number of big broad subjects
1:02:18
but what will work best will the particular smaller issues
1:02:26
a particular use for patients that affect individuals or single businesses or single agencies
1:02:36
particular Court decisions things in particular where
1:02:42
the some cooperation at the state level is required
1:02:48
now if the Nullification commission could do no more than rally the public to refuse
1:02:56
to convict if they're asked to serve on a jury that would be important and might
1:03:03
very well be sufficient in many cases it might not be necessary to get the
1:03:09
entire state government and all the state contractors on board at the same
1:03:15
time but uh what we'll be trying to do over
1:03:21
the next days and weeks and months will be to identify
1:03:27
specifically how a nullification commission might address
1:03:34
various complaints that people could bring to it
1:03:39
how it could best approach them and do so in a way that did not cause it to be
1:03:46
shot down now on another note has been proposed by
1:03:53
some that the Nullification commission should take complaints from citizens
1:03:58
above state level violations of the state level state
1:04:04
constitution I can certainly sympathize with that
1:04:10
envision however would need to realize that existing
1:04:17
grand juries can all already do that they are kept from doing that by DA's
1:04:24
who have tried to bring them under their control and by judges who are usually
1:04:30
cronies of the DA's but in principle if grand juries were
1:04:39
opened up to Citizen complaints
1:04:44
then uh citizens could bring them complaints
1:04:50
about state level constitutional violations has occurred not too long ago here in
1:04:58
Austin and it had the result of the desired result
1:05:03
but we don't need to invent a new institution to deal with that we need to
1:05:09
make an old existing institution work and that's what
1:05:17
we need to focus on at the pristine level violations
1:05:26
yes John when you were discussing the real ID Act I saw I think on one of your
1:05:32
slides that the feds might refuse access to their facilities unless you had a
1:05:40
real ID right and one one thing that that brought to mind is uh let's say
1:05:47
you're a citizen and you want to pay money that you owe the federal government
1:05:54
um currently is it is it
1:06:01
can you go to a federal facility and pay off your debt with cash
1:06:06
well they discourage it but yeah but that of course raises all kinds of questions because the is the feds as
1:06:14
much as anyone else who needs people to be able to get into their facilities
1:06:20
what happens if for example if somebody is subpoenaed to appear as a witness in
1:06:25
a federal case he shows up at the courthouse door and says I'm reporting to us to to the court
1:06:35
the peer as a witness and uh but I don't have any ID as well you can't come into the
1:06:41
courthouse as well uh are you telling me that uh not they're gonna the the Marshall is
1:06:48
come looking for me because I didn't show up to testify but even though I'm here I am well ready and willing to
1:06:55
testify and the guard would probably say well I better go talk to my supervisor
1:07:03
and at that point that's exactly that's exactly the kind of conundrum that I was
1:07:08
thinking about at that point the U.S attorney would probably come downstairs and say we need this guy to testify
1:07:18
you know I I know what he I know he is I'll just
1:07:23
let him in on my say so the garden the guard would say but sir
1:07:30
we're not supposed to let anybody in who doesn't have a real ID well the guy has
1:07:36
maybe a Texas driver's license yeah but not a real life but not a reality yeah
1:07:42
yeah so uh they're in a they're in a bind there in
1:07:48
effect it becomes unworkable for several levels well a lot of people when they heard
1:07:55
that gee we won't be allowed in the federal facility gee I don't want to go in a better
1:08:00
facility anyway that doesn't hurt me one bit
1:08:07
so the the Congress is in a the usual position of
1:08:15
having us being able to say be careful what you ask for
1:08:20
This Record case sounds like it was pretty bad wickard versus filburn
1:08:26
and I'm surprised that the Supreme Court has not overturned it since then
1:08:31
well far from overturning it they have build upon it and build upon it and build upon it until now there's a huge
1:08:40
flood of cases of Precedence built upon it which you could not really overturn
1:08:47
without an amendment at this point we're going to have to
1:08:52
manage the Supreme Court could overturn in principle it could but it won't
1:08:58
their conservatives institution and from their Viewpoint if they overturn wickard
1:09:05
or a case built on record they would be faced with having to overturn all of this other these other
1:09:12
cases yeah it would me and literally thousands of cases
1:09:19
and they can only handle about 80 or 90 a year so they wouldn't be able to get anything
1:09:25
else done well they have they they choose their cases so they can choose what whatever
1:09:31
they want to get done yes and I it would be lovely to see them in
1:09:36
that position but I I know the the Supreme Court well enough
1:09:42
to know that they're they're just not going to do that we'd have to completely replace them
1:09:47
with a whole new set of people and they're the number the likelihood of
1:09:53
appointing Libertarians of the U.S Supreme Court is not very great
1:09:59
since I haven't been present for your previous discussions of nullification commissions I'm not
1:10:07
familiar with your proposals for how they should be
1:10:12
chosen or elected okay um
1:10:19
in my proposal I proposed that it'd be a panel of 23
1:10:27
which is a standard size for a grand jury that they be chosen from a pool of at
1:10:34
least 230. larger if possible of people who have are knowledgeable in
1:10:41
the law but are not lawyers
1:10:46
uh that could be paralegals it could be uh well it could be judges but judges don't
1:10:52
have to be lawyers in principal but uh
1:10:58
well now I'm trying to think of it I excluded judges too all right um
1:11:04
or it could be legal historians and of course my favorites are legal
1:11:10
historians because I think that as a academic
1:11:15
uh field there are more legal historians are more
1:11:20
faithful to the Constitution than than most lawyers are
1:11:26
if you were to pick people from professors from law schools and
1:11:31
professors of History who specialize in legal history at random you would get
1:11:38
more Fidelity to the Constitution than the legal historians
1:11:43
in particular you would have a you would be more likely to get people with the ability to analyze the
1:11:52
legal issues the way I think they need to be if you're trying to understand what the original understanding as opposed to
1:11:58
just the last president so uh
1:12:05
from that point of view I would say it would be a challenge to come up with 230
1:12:11
qualified people in the whole entire state of Texas but of course hopefully the uh
1:12:19
the feel would be expanded if there was felt that there was a an interest in it
1:12:27
of course it could include law students which would they would make a pretty
1:12:33
pretty good candidate pool they're not lawyers yet so they're they're still young and fresh and I'm
1:12:40
perhaps unimpressed by all the indoctrination that they're about to get so then you have this pool of
1:12:48
230 how would the members of the grand of the commission be chosen from that
1:12:55
pool at random
1:13:01
and how would the pool be chosen okay well there's several possibilities one
1:13:06
would be to have a few State officials appoint them is drawing from as many as they could
1:13:11
find throwing them all into one big pool another way would just be to pick them
1:13:17
at random from the from from the voters now
1:13:23
the first such selection randomly from the voters wouldn't get you people are
1:13:28
knowledgeable about them in the law but what you can do is pick a large
1:13:34
panel whose job it is is then to pick
1:13:40
the ones who are more knowledgeable in the law than they are and this could go to several rounds
1:13:48
so you could have one panel picking a second panel picking a third panel until
1:13:53
you finally get down to a pool from which you pick the final final
1:14:01
uh so basically all their their whole job would it be to figure out who is most
1:14:07
knowledgeable about of the law and the Constitution
1:14:14
so this this kind of multi-level sortation uh process is one that has actually been
1:14:22
used historically he was used by the city and the State of
1:14:27
Venice for 760 years although the method evolved someone during the whole of that
1:14:34
period to select their chief executive the Doge
1:14:39
and a lot of people think that those was a kind of elected King but he wasn't
1:14:45
he was an executive official more like a prime minister
1:14:51
and the design objective for a selection process was to avoid undue influence by
1:14:58
any of the large powerful families there was about a dozen powerful
1:15:03
families who were as liable enough to go to war with one another or certainly to assassinate with one another if they
1:15:10
didn't get their way so the dose was intended to be a neutral figure not under the control of any of them
1:15:19
and of course they looked at election they looked at appointment who's going
1:15:25
to appoint a guy an election isn't going to work because the big families would just pay off
1:15:30
people to vote for their guy so they adopted a system which had
1:15:36
actually first been used in ancient Greece of random selection or sortation
1:15:43
and they had a multi-level process they started out with a large pool with
1:15:49
selected a large smaller pool randomly selected the next level those who
1:15:55
filtered out some then they did another random selection so they altered altered
1:16:01
a filtering process and a random selection process until what they wound up with was one
1:16:08
guy who was not did not owe his job to any powerful interest
1:16:16
there's enough Randomness in the process but also enough filtering for uh
1:16:23
skills that they wound up generally with pretty good candidates
1:16:29
in fact that's interesting I've never heard of that process yes described on our website you go to constitution.org
1:16:37
and click on selection and removal and then scroll down to the sortation
1:16:45
option and you'll click on you'll see a list of
1:16:51
articles on sortation and the very first article is an article about how Venice did it for 760 years
1:17:01
and if you read about the history of Venice through that period
1:17:07
they were remarkably well governed they almost never chose a bad a bad
1:17:14
Village he was almost always what from our
1:17:20
Viewpoint for with the advantage of hindsight would have been probably pretty much the best selection they
1:17:26
could have made objectively so they live in relative peace and
1:17:34
prosperity for a very long period of time they were finally conquered from outside but they didn't fall from within
1:17:43
it wasn't a case of internal corruption and Decay that did it for them
1:17:50
what do you think about repealing the amendment
1:17:55
that calls for popular election of senators
1:18:02
I think it's a bad idea I understand the motive for it but in
1:18:07
relation to trying to preserve a little bit more states rights
1:18:14
yeah the problem is it never worked that way by the time it was adopted
1:18:21
it was possible for according to one report I read a big interest like the railroads or oil
1:18:29
or Steel to buy a U.S senator for as little as two thousand dollars
1:18:36
spreading bribes to as many as as few as four or fives Keys state legislators
1:18:44
see the state legislatures of the time mostly didn't care what Congress did
1:18:50
that was before Congress was sending large amounts of money to the states
1:18:57
and they were not in general passing very many laws that the state's objected
1:19:02
to because they just weren't passing that many laws
1:19:07
uh so the states did not feel particularly
1:19:13
threatened except on a few issues
1:19:19
but that could mostly be achieved without it it didn't matter whether the
1:19:25
senator was elected by the legislature or popularly
1:19:31
but there was a problem of corruption the tendency for the state legislature
1:19:38
was to get rid of their least popular members by making them U.S senators
1:19:46
if you had a guy who just wouldn't go along with the other corrupt state senate state legislators
1:19:52
say oh I don't know what to do with him he's he's too too goody for us this makes him a U.S senator or maybe he was
1:19:59
just the most corrupt member ah that guy is
1:20:04
uh he's playing with a women he's gambling he's he's taking bribes he's
1:20:10
you know sooner or later he's going to make us look bad I know what we do making a U.S senator
1:20:18
by the time that the 17 so-called 17th Amendment because they may not have been the 17th
1:20:25
was adopted Most states were already yielding to popular pressure to elect
1:20:31
their Senators through popular elections and the state legislature just rubber
1:20:37
stamped the result of the popular referendum so by the time the amendment was adopted
1:20:45
there were almost enough states were already doing that that to pass the amendment
1:20:53
so it wasn't the result of corruption it was a result of an anti-corruption
1:20:58
effort it was a reform movement it was a very popular thing to do away
1:21:05
with the corruption that had developed now I want to argue for
1:21:11
various ways of the states could control the U.S
1:21:17
Congress but that's not one that worked
1:21:22
and of course one that might have had a little bit of effect would be if they had a recall power
1:21:28
but they didn't have a recall power they only had a power to elect
1:21:34
the number six months six years they were stuck with a guy
1:21:40
um so the the idea is a good one except
1:21:46
that it didn't work and if we're going to adopt reforms we need to adopt ones
1:21:51
that will actually work with practice in your view is our current Federal
1:21:58
Reserve System that began with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
1:22:05
unconstitutional yes but not in the way that a lot of
1:22:10
people think
1:22:17
the problem is not so much the Federal Reserve as legal tender
1:22:25
the Federal Reserve is the problem that it is because we have made
1:22:31
paper money legal tender if gold and silver were legal tender
1:22:38
then it wouldn't matter if there was a federal reserve because of course the credit also
1:22:44
couldn't be fractional Reserve banking which is also facilitated and
1:22:49
facilitates paper money uh we just have got to get away from
1:22:57
making debt as instruments money are you referring specifically to debt
1:23:05
instruments on which the federal government is paying interest or more General debt into Data
1:23:13
instruments including debt instruments on which the federal government is not paying interest
1:23:19
all that instruments if used as money
1:23:24
do you consider a a U.S treasury note
1:23:30
of an old an old uh certificate uh silver certificate you consider that
1:23:38
a dead instrument on which the U.S the the federal government was paying
1:23:44
interest or a dead instrument on which the federal government was not paying interest it was not paying interest
1:23:51
because it was backed by silver see if in that case all it is it's just
1:23:58
a it's like a warehouse research received could the federal could the U.S
1:24:05
treasury could Congress enact a bill that would
1:24:10
Direct the U.S treasury to issue money or
1:24:16
dead instruments on which the federal government does not pay interest paper
1:24:21
money in order to pay for all goods and
1:24:27
services acquired by the federal government no why not well first of all the federal government
1:24:34
does not have authority to make anything legal tender on state territory
1:24:40
it could do it on exclusively Federal territory like the District of Columbia or some of
1:24:46
the our Islands there was a time when for example it
1:24:51
Congress made Indian Wampum money in some of the western territories
1:25:00
you can make anything money legal tender where it has authority to do it but it
1:25:05
does not have authority to do it on state territory when State territory only the states have authority to do
1:25:12
that and they have only authority to do it for gold and silver coin I agree with that
1:25:23
so the problem is that when a certificate is no longer backed by
1:25:28
Gilbert and silver then it's backed by what well the court on his face it says by the full faith
1:25:35
and credit of the United States what does that mean well what it means
1:25:41
translated is the power to withdraw through taxes enough money from circular
1:25:48
currency from circulation to offset the amount that the
1:25:53
government prints or generates was mostly it's not really
1:25:59
printing money it's making entries in a computer um
1:26:05
so for our creditors the people who loan the government money
1:26:13
to feel confident that the money won't lose its value
1:26:18
in effect if government is having to tell them look we will
1:26:24
for every dollar that we issue that we create will withdraw one from
1:26:31
circulation so that the total money supply will increase slowly but only at the rate of
1:26:38
the economy grows so the money supply and the the total of
1:26:44
goods and services will about would more or less keep track will be in in parallel with each other
1:26:53
uh the problem of course is that this is breaking down it is broken down now for
1:27:00
many countries and it's breaking down for this one we are now generating more money than we
1:27:07
can withdraw from circulation
1:27:16
I mean if we drew all money from circulation it still wouldn't be enough
1:27:21
because it would it would have to start getting into the money that it just generated
1:27:33
I view the accumulation of interest on the federal debt as one of the key
1:27:40
problems and it seems to me that that
1:27:45
can easily be that that federal debt on which interest
1:27:51
accumulates can easily be avoided yeah well of course now we see that
1:27:57
the Federal Reserve is not the only source of lending we're having to go out to other countries
1:28:03
so to China and do various so-called Sovereign wealth funds as they're called
1:28:10
these are all debtors of the United States creditors creditors of the United States
1:28:15
and they have or they represent the same problem um
1:28:21
there are two ways basically to withdraw money from circulation to either tax it
1:28:29
or or loan it uh you know
1:28:36
borrowing as the the Practical effect of creating money without
1:28:42
having the tax to get it uh but that can't go on forever sooner or
1:28:50
later you either run out of creditors or you run out of taxpayers yeah with the accumulation of Interest
1:28:57
uh in the end that means that the federal
1:29:02
government will have to issue even more money yeah to pay off to pay it off yeah
1:29:07
that's one of the reasons I think that interest needs to be it needs to be
1:29:13
avoided well interest can only work in the long run if the economy grows at
1:29:19
about the interest rate because the interest essentially represents a fraction of the growth in
1:29:27
the economy Pursuit but that it presumes that the economy will always grow
1:29:33
if it ever fallsers and the whole system of Interest collapses
1:29:40
let's say that the economy grows at a constant rate of three percent per year
1:29:47
I still argue that it is easy and
1:29:54
good to avoid federal debt on which interest
1:30:00
accumulates and it's good for a number of reasons
1:30:06
again let's say for example there were no government this is these was only private players interacting with
1:30:13
themselves okay let's say you have people with money loaning money to those who don't
1:30:20
have money to invest in the growth of the economy in production of goods and
1:30:25
services um if you were there if they were paid back
1:30:30
the same amount of amount they loaned they wouldn't have an incentive to loan they want a rate of return on their the
1:30:40
capital that they've loaned well and that's fine as long as the people
1:30:46
they loan it to can in turn make money on the the capital that they've borrowed
1:30:53
money to to use so they need to get a share and the
1:31:00
lender needs to get a share but they can only get a share in the long run if the economy grows the goods
1:31:07
and services expand to cover them both
1:31:13
and if it doesn't cover them both then either the Creditor is going to
1:31:19
wind up controlling the business he invested in and squeezing out the the guy who
1:31:26
borrowed the money so even now it becomes just a a poor downtrodden peon
1:31:33
or the guy who loaned the money is going to be wiped out
1:31:38
are certainly reduced at wealth until where he may be only become a downtrodden Beyond
1:31:46
sooner or later there has to be a collapse somebody fails
1:31:51
in that uh so you have to figure in the failure rates of the businesses and of the
1:31:58
creditors to us to account for the difference
1:32:04
and in a market in which you have a lot of individuals
1:32:10
smaller small businesses all competing and of course some of them
1:32:15
saving some investings and uh using capital for production
1:32:24
the control of wealth gradually will shift
1:32:31
back hopefully back and forth so that you don't have one player
1:32:37
becoming the owner of everything
1:32:43
um if that happens and sooner or later he is if we're even if nothing else happens
1:32:49
to him is going to collapse and you wind up with the entire economy
1:32:55
going down the tubes everybody coming poor having to start all over again and begin to be able build up again until
1:33:02
you know fewer and fewer people control more and more wealth and we then we go into another collapse
1:33:10
the other thing so you can have people saving
1:33:16
among themselves small players and uh
1:33:22
or you can have savings done by large players
1:33:29
what you have with something like a Federal Reserve System is the government and the Federal
1:33:36
Reserve taking the place of ordinary citizens ordinary economic actors
1:33:42
as the principal savers in effect they're doing the saving that
1:33:48
we should be doing for us except they're also gaining control of
1:33:55
the economy in the process and making most of the economic decisions instead of us controlling the economy by
1:34:03
deciding where to invest our money or what do what to make
1:34:08
or what services to provide they're putting themselves in a position where they can say okay you will buy
1:34:17
this you will invest in that you will produce this you will provide these
1:34:22
services in fact they're gaining control over us
1:34:28
and if they really knew what they were doing to say well maybe that would be okay
1:34:34
but they can't know what they really know what they're doing be on a certain point just because somebody is a better
1:34:42
manager than another and if this business makes more money that doesn't mean he knows how to run
1:34:48
the whole economy you may know better than his competitors
1:34:54
how to run that business but if he gets too big the whole system becomes jeopardized why
1:35:03
does Congress issue death or incurred debt on which interest
1:35:11
accumulates when it when it can
1:35:17
issue money on which interest does not accumulate
1:35:22
well of course the answer to that is for several things first of all the creditors have a lot of political clout
1:35:31
they are able to write the rules they get the guys elected you know
1:35:37
um but there's another side to it which is that the Gap is cloud through a
1:35:42
series of depressions and Wars When government could not
1:35:48
pay its bills without turning to them for their support what do these
1:35:55
creditors have they have control over wealth which the
1:36:01
government needed at critical times in its history in order to fight its Wars and avoid
1:36:09
overthrow during depressions
1:36:15
I mean there it's not an accident that when we fought World War II we did it on
1:36:21
borrowed money but we had to borrow it from somebody
1:36:26
it wasn't it didn't just all come from savings bonds although some of it did
1:36:32
and they had to go out through the entire world and borrowed money from all kinds of people
1:36:40
and all kinds of you know governments and Wealthy individuals and whatever
1:36:46
and those creditors wanted to be able to manage this whole
1:36:53
thing they want to deal directly with the government they want to be able to deal with them indirectly through banking institutions
1:37:01
which of course they can own and control so uh yeah that the wealth was there it just
1:37:09
was only available to the government if it was willing to make a deal
1:37:18
so that's why the seven guys met at Jekyll Island where I have been by the way same rooms
1:37:26
that they used um to design the Federal Reserve System
1:37:33
to avoid some of the problems of the first and second National Banks
1:37:39
that were brought into being and then destroyed
1:37:45
um they try to be into subtle and indirect about it instead of having a single
1:37:51
Central Bank that said well let's just have 12 Regional Banks which are really
1:37:58
cartels of member banks and we'll all we'll have is a
1:38:05
appointed board which will kind of generally supervise them and regulate their interest rates
1:38:14
but technically there's technically there's all their it's a private organization
1:38:21
so if the federal government were to refuse to issue
1:38:30
um to incur debt on which interest accumulated but the question is how would it acquire
1:38:39
goods and services and is there something wrong in principle
1:38:45
with the federal government issuing money on which interest does not accumulate in
1:38:50
order to risk in order to acquire the goods and services that the federal government
1:38:56
acquires no but if then it has to be backed by something why people won't take it otherwise will
1:39:04
not take U.S treasury money that is labeled legal tender they
1:39:11
won't take it unless it's backed by something
1:39:16
why why not it's backed by it it's a it would be the currency
1:39:22
well it might be it would be the clarity exchange might be declared to be the currency but the if the people are not
1:39:30
assured that the the government is not going to print scats scads and scads of it
1:39:39
they're not going to take it in exchange for goods and services so Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything
1:39:46
well they're not except they're they're backed by the Federal Reserve System
1:39:52
which is charging interest on it it only works because there's a cabal of
1:39:59
Bankers behind it all who are willing to keep it going in order to collect that
1:40:06
interest it seems to me that U.S treasury
1:40:12
paper money on which interests does not accumulate would be stronger
1:40:20
than Federal Reserve notes you might think so plus because
1:40:30
Federal Reserve notes on which the U.S government is paying interest
1:40:36
is it being interested um
1:40:43
well when the US government pays interest
1:40:50
it seems that that that in the end the US government would have
1:40:55
to issue even more money to retire the debt that's right and and
1:41:02
so when the U.S government takes out death
1:41:07
that is inherently that that leads to devaluing of
1:41:15
money that the US government would issue compared to if the U.S government had
1:41:21
issued money on which no interest is the US government doesn't need to pay
1:41:27
interest right unless of course the uh
1:41:33
large money interests are able to withdraw that and into their own control
1:41:41
by in the by having it be interest on what they learn
1:41:49
in other words the the whole system is set up to be a substitute for backing by
1:41:55
a gold and silver or some other such tangible item of value now if I'm if I'm somebody
1:42:02
who makes pencils or makes desks or uh is a building contractor that the
1:42:10
federal government wants to contact with to build a building why wouldn't I take paper money issued
1:42:17
by the U.S treasurer well because what can you exchange it for
1:42:23
I can exchange it for uh bread that the baker makes well only the bread the
1:42:29
baker's willing to accept it that's right that's right so the whole thing depends upon
1:42:34
a consensus of people to accept United currency and and people would generally
1:42:43
um be willing to accept as payment U.S treasury paper money that says that
1:42:51
on it that it is legal tender yeah they might for a while but what happens when
1:42:58
they have gotten a hundred dollars worth of stunts currency they call it dollars
1:43:03
let's say and uh they go out to pay their own bills and
1:43:10
the next guy says well yeah I'll accept them but I just won't give you as much
1:43:15
as you used to get for the hundred dollars
1:43:20
now they're getting less and less for the same amount of money as
1:43:27
time proceeds and eventually they're beginning to see a pattern there you know that if this
1:43:34
trend continues uh this money isn't going to be worth anything so I need to get rid of it now well I need to convert
1:43:41
it into goods and services before it becomes worthless I I think the I think that compared to Federal Reserve notes
1:43:47
the opposite is true
1:43:53
I mean I think that the notes issued by the U.S treasury would be stronger
1:43:59
than Federal Reserve notes what else that we give you to get out of
1:44:05
here so
#Government
#Public Policy
#Constitutional Law & Civil Rights