I know I’m asking a lot, but I would like for you to think about something.
Suppose you decide to have a yard sale, you know, to sell off some stuff that’s just been cluttering up your home. So you set your alarm early one Saturday and drag all this stuff you want to get rid of out to your driveway and affix what you hope is a reasonable price to everything. Then you sit around and wait; hoping that someone is willing to cough up some cash so you don’t end up having to make a trip to the dump to get rid of all this stuff.
A couple hours go by and nobody has even stopped to look at what you’ve got. Finally some old guy in a pickup truck slows and then stops when he sees something that catches his interest. He gets out and walks directly to an old cordless drill set you no longer use. Without any bargaining at all he pulls out a $10 bill, exactly what you were asking for it, and hands it to you. You take his money and he walks away with the drill.
Now I’m not talking about all the other stuff you didn’t sell, I want to focus on that one transaction. When he pulled out his wallet and handed you that piece of paper, (or I should say clothe, as that is a more accurate description of the material our currency is printed on), what is it about that piece of paper/clothe that makes you believe it has any value?
I’m currently looking at a $10 bill and nowhere on it does it say the word M O N E Y. Money is defined as a medium of exchange in the forms of coins or banknotes. The only reason you accept that $10 bill is because you have been told that it is M O N E Y. You put your faith and trust in the fact that the bills you carry around in your wallet are good as a means of exchanging goods or services between people.
You know, the old money, stuff that was around when I was just a child, used to have the saying on it, “Will pay to the bearer on demand ten dollars.”, or twenty, fifty, or one hundred; depending on the value of the note. You see, the old money was merely a bank note which was redeemable for real money. So again, the only thing that gives those things in your wallet any value is your faith and trust that they are accepted as a legitimate means of exchange for goods or services; otherwise you may as well be carrying around Monopoly Money.
What would happen if suddenly a large portion of American businesses decided that this paper money no longer held any value and they refused to accept it as a means for paying for goods or services? Eventually the entire economic system would fail. I think those behind the money; The FED and the Treasury realize this, that their economic policies and the inflation caused by their artificially stimulating the economy by pumping massive amounts of currency into it, have created a bubble that is going to burst and bring the whole house of cards down. That is what I see as one of the underlying reasons for this push to go to a cashless society with all transactions done electronically. But that is an issue for another article and another day as I digress from my intended topic.
For the time being people still put their faith and trust in the Federal Reserve Notes as a means of paying for goods and services because the government tells them they are an accepted form of payment. If their faith and trust in them were to disappear then the system would collapse and we would be forced to come up with an alternative means of paying for goods or services.
Were I to ask you what was our nation’s founding document, how would you respond? I’m sure many of you would blurt out; The Constitution, without even thinking about the question and its implications. If you said the Constitution you would be wrong, as it did not establish our nation; it established our nation’s system of government. Our nation’s founding document is the Declaration of Independence.
I don’t know how most people read our founding documents, or any of the writings of our Founders. I liken it to making tea; you take whatever ideas are expressed by the document and then you let it steep in your mind to get the full effect of the words written. To truly understand them you can’t just read over them without allowing yourself the time to ponder what they say.
There is one such sentence from the Declaration of Independence I’d like for you to give such attention to; “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
What if the people withdrew their consent?
When people talk of government they often include all the government agencies as being government. But if you were to pare away the excess and get down to the basics; what is government? Government consists of: a president and a vice-president; 100 United States Senators and 435 members of the House of Representatives; and 9 Justices to the Supreme Court, giving you a total of 546 people. That’s not a very big number, is it? But that is government according to the Constitution. Everything else, all the other agencies and bureaucracies are entities created by the government; they are not accountable to us, nor do they derive their just authority from us.
These agencies, these bureaucracies are the enforcing arms of government which imposes the will of government upon us; but they are not government; not according to the framework established by the Constitution.
As a side note, this is one of the reasons some of the Founders; Jefferson primarily, feared the power given the Judicial Branch; as they were not directly elected by the people and held their seats for life. No other branch was so independent, and unaccountable to the people. Anyone who has given it much thought can see how the Supreme Court has become so fractured and divided along party lines that it no longer serves justice; it serves the ambitions and goals of those held by a majority of the Justices. If the Court be left leaning then justice, (if you can call it that), will be left leaning. If a majority of the Justices are right leaning then the opposite is true.
Again, I digress. But that’s how my mind works sometimes; it bounces around from idea to idea and it takes a concerted effort to keep it focused on the intended subject.
If our nation was established by the Declaration of Independence, then it follows that any system of government established by the nation must adhere to the principles contained within that document. It also follows that any system of government established by the nation would draw its consent from those it governed. So again I ask; what if we simply withdrew our consent?
The way our system of governance was set up was in a manner which gave representation to two entities; the States as co-equal sovereigns and the people. Through their representation in Congress either could check the other from exceeding the powers granted government by the Constitution. It was not a perfect plan, but it was the plan that was agreed to by the Assemblies chosen by the States. (And this is another area where I could have digressed and written about how the States had no authority to leave it up to the people to decide the issue of whether or not to accept or reject the Constitution)
It was not long after our system of government went into effect, our second President to be exact, that the federal government, or the Executive to be exact again, chose to flex its muscles and exercise powers that some felt were a violation of the powers granted government. When John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, (much like many of the laws we have seen passed to fight this faux War on Terror), his own Vice-President took a stand against him.
After Adams had signed these unconstitutional laws Thomas Jefferson wrote The Kentucky Resolutions, wherein it says, “Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government . . . . and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. . . . that the government created by this compact [the Constitution for the United States] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; . . . . that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority.”
The concept expressed in The Kentucky Resolutions is known as nullification; wherein a represented body; be it the States or the people, choose to simply not enforce laws passed by the federal government which they believe to be unconstitutional exercises of power.
Had you been educated properly you would have seen a similar crisis arise in the years leading up to the Civil War. This was known as the Nullification Crisis and was brought about by the South’s protests against the tariffs imposed upon them by the federal government. It was the precursor to the Civil War; and make no mistake about it, the Civil War was not a war to protect slavery, it was a war in which a portion of the nation decided that the federal government had grown too big, too powerful, and detrimental to the needs of that portion of the nation. So they exercised their right, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, to severe the political ties which bound them to the Union and establish their own system of government; drawing it’s just powers from the consent of those it governed.
But even the most uneducated among us know how well that worked out for them. The federal government could not stand the fact that a portion of the country had simply left and formed their own country. Led by Abraham Lincoln, they waged a long and brutal war to force the South into remaining under the influence of the federal government. There is a big difference between remaining in the Union and remaining under the control of the federal government. Had the federal government not infringed upon the rights of the Southern States they would never have seceded; but since they did the federal government took that as an assault upon its authority and took steps to ensure that it never happened again. The issue of secession was decided by the North’s victory in the Civil War.
Still, the idea of nullification still holds some effectiveness in a way to fight federal encroachment upon States rights, or the rights of the people. However, this cannot be exercised by a people, or by the States they live in, when these entities are dependent upon federal funds for a portion of their existence.
Should a State, simply choose not to enforce or abide by the laws passed by the federal government then all Uncle Sam has to do to force compliance is cut off State funding for any number of programs the States rely on for their survival.
Now let me ask you something; does all this sound like our government is exercising just powers with the consent of those it governs? I think not; I think it sounds more like blackmail and economic coercion to me. And that smacks of tyranny.
The federal government has taken a life of its own now and cares only about expanding its power and ensuring its own survival. Any time anyone, or anything crops up which threatens its existence, or exercises too much liberty, the government steps in and squashes it.
The Civil War showed us that.
Waco showed us that.
Ruby Ridge showed us that.
The murder of Lavoy Finicum and the imprisonment of Cliven Bundy showed us that.
How much longer are you going to support a government, or a system, that uses force and coercion to compel obedience to its edicts? Is it because you are too timid to stand up to big bad Uncle Sam? Or, is it that you cannot live without all the benefits Uncle Sam provides to keep you from resisting all the other unconstitutional exercises of power it does?
But that’s what liberty is all about; standing on your own two feet and not relying upon anyone to take care of you; being self-sufficient and self-reliant. Maybe that scares too many of you. Maybe that is why you continue to vote for people who, if you had given it any thought at all, have proven that the limits imposed upon the office they seek mean nothing to them.
I have simply withdrawn my consent; I choose not to make a choice between slave master A and slave master B. As an individual I may not have the power to nullify unconstitutional acts performed by my government; but I certainly don’t have to participate in choosing which asshole is going to be the next violator of my rights.
If enough people made this choice, then maybe we could bring about change, true change, in America. But as long as you are a slave to the idea that voting is going to make a difference nothing is going to get any better.
With more surety I am coming to believe that our system is beyond salvage; that it must be allowed to collapse; with a corresponding period of tyrannical rule, before any remnant of liberty loving individuals can hope to re-establish a system based upon individual liberty. The people must be made to learn the errors of their ways before they can be expected to change them.
That is just how I see it.
Just as the money in our wallets and purses only holds any value because we put or trust and faith in them, our government only has any authority because we put our trust and faith in it. If enough people were to withdraw that trust and faith, and begin exercising a bit of individual nullification, then we could bring about a lessening of the tyranny, and maybe an eventual restriction of power held by the federal government. But not until more people learn what powers the system was originally designed to exercise. As long as people are ignorant regarding the powers their fore-fathers bestowed upon this system of government it will continue to grow with a corresponding loss of liberty.
And there you have it…