The final version of the much-amended resolution notes that “there is disagreement about the impacts of Sections 1021 and 1022″ and, in opposition to the assumption of power to deny due process to American citizens, affirms the constitutional right to “due process and a speedy trial.

WHEREAS, the indefinite military detention of a citizen in the United States without charge or trial violates the right to be free from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law guaranteed by the United States Constitution, Amendment V and Utah Constitution, Article I, Section 14;

The resolution “reaffirms our rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Utah Constitution, and urges the United States Congress to clarify, or repeal if found necessary, Sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 NDAA to ensure protection of the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Utah Constitution.

After passing unanimously through both chambers, the resolution now heads to Governor Herbert’s desk for a signature.

How Do I View America?

I have always been a patriot. Since I was a small child, I have understood what America stands for, and just how important our nation is in light of the rest of the world. I believed in the legends of our Founders, the American creed, the Constitution, and what it meant be a free country. However, the course of our nation has continued to stray away from the tenets that made it such a glowing example of liberty. In fact, the last 50 years have given way to a near complete erosion of the Bill of Rights, and a system and society that has all but forgotten how and why this nation came to be…

As an English Literature and U.S. History and Government teacher, I believe that much of our nation’s “undoing” lies in the post-industrial, one-size-fits-all public education system. I have watched as one textbook after the next is condensed, and decade after decade, American students are fed “sound bites” and snippets of history with the “who, what, when, and where” becoming more important than the “how?” and “why?”. In fact, questioning anything at all has become almost taboo among the general populous… “thought crime,” if I may go so far.

Our nation is a mere 235 years old. Our struggles, while many think are unique to the American experience, have been seen in every great civilization since the beginning. So, how do I view America? We are at a crossroads, and we must decide if we will uphold the vision of our Founders and continue the Great Experiment, or if we will place collective security above individual sovereignty. Will we turn away from collectivism and  face the toils of life as freemen or accept the bondage of the corporatist movement and serfdom?

Herbert stated in his State of the State address, “the vast majority of regulations causing the most harm to Utah business come from Washington, D.C. –part of the regulatory colossus created by an overreaching, out-of-control, and out-of-touch federal government. I am firmly resolved to work with our Congressional delegation and my fellow Governors to tell the Washington bureaucrats to get out of the way of Utah’s economic recovery, and stop the senseless flow of onerous and misguided regulation from our nation’s capitol.” With federal money comes federal mandates and regulation. Many, like Rep. Ken Sumsion (R-American Fork) , believe that there are ways to curb the federal spending. He said that “if elected, he would reject federal money for any new program and try to cut back federal dollars over time.”

Governor Herbert spoke along the same lines stating, “yeah, we’ve had some increases in money in the budget because of the mandates that come out of Washington, D.C., and this effort to have a partnership, But we will wean ourselves off of it. We will live within our means and as the federal government balances their budget — and I hope they do — we will make those critical adjustments as we do what we need to do here in the state.” The looming economic woes of the central government should encourage all governors to wean themselves off of federal funding to hedge their states from further financial risk; however, the desire to secure autonomy from sprawling federal dictates and restore the compound republic that is prescribed by the Constitution should be paramount.

While Herbert used some very strong language in his Wednesday night speech, including the following statement, “Whether fighting the federal government on ownership and control of our … roads, restoring mule deer population, defending multiple use of our public lands, ending the budget-busting drain of Medicaid, or challenging the constitutionality of mandatory nationalized health care in the Supreme Court, be assured that this governor is firmly resolved to fortify our state as a bulwark against federal overreach,” many in Utah are going to be looking for strong action. With bills like SB0034 (Production and Sale of Food in Utah) hitting the legislative floor this year dealing directly with the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty issues, Governor Herbert will have amble opportunity to walk-the-talk.

The first Chief Justice, John Jay, stated the following to the first jury in the first Supreme Court trial held in the United States:

It may not be amiss, here, gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt you will pay that respect which is due to the opinion of the court; for, as on the one hand, it is presumed that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable that the courts are the best judges of law. But still, both objects are lawfully within your power of decision (Georgia vs Brailsford 1794).

The power of the jury to rule on both fact and law was considered by our Founding Fathers to be paramount in the protection of civil liberties, and a last safeguard against government tyranny. Thomas Jefferson acknowledged the right of a judge to rule alone in the question of law only, but if the case were based on a combination of fact and law then, “it is usual for the jurors to decided the fact, and to refer the law arising from it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the State, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system… But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of a just decision…” (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson pp372). In other words, if a law (or a judge) stands to deprive a person of life, property, or liberty unjustly, then it is in the power of the jurors to find that person to be innocent, and stand as a “palladium” of protection. In Jefferson’s opinion, even if the jurors are incorrect in their interpretation of the law, their mistake poses less of a threat to our justice system than the damage that can be done by a biased judge and an unjust or unconstitutional law.

Interestingly, the power of jury nullification still exists within the American court system– Americans just don’t know about it. In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that while juries have the right to ignore a judges instructions in regard to law, they do not have to be informed of this right (Sparf vs U.S.). With one of the last safeguards to American liberty neatly dealt with, law makers and the courts can hold the American people hostage via the legal system. 

The right to complain is not nearly as potent as the right to nullify. As American citizens, it is the responsibility of each of us to uphold the Constitution and protect the right to life, liberty, and property– while we may not be able to control the laws that Congress and our President pass, we can control whether or not our fellow Americans are harmed by them. As jurors, it is our prerogative, dare I say obligation, when facing an unjust law or biased judge to rule “not guilty” for the defendant and send a message to our lawmakers that we will tolerate the demise of our liberty no more.

Poor academic showing is not the only consequence of our federally governed education system, however. We have also suffered a great loss of liberty in that schooling is compulsory, curriculum is designed and distributed by publishing companies with deep ties to the government itself, and parents have been left with no say in what is happening to their children, and treated as though they are not qualified to criticize or question the system that is so very flawed. The government would like us to believe that we need more “funding” to fix the broken system. “We have tried spending more money and putting more teachers in classrooms for more than a generation, with no observable improvements to anything except the schools’ bottom lines,” states de Rugy. “If reform is to be defined by something other than the amount of money flushed down the toilet, it is time to reverse the flow of power from the top (administrators, school districts, teachers unions, governments) to the bottom (students, their parents, and taxpayers who want their money spent wisely).”

I couldn’t agree more. While de Rugy suggests “the ‘parent trigger,’ which allows fed-up parents whose children are in a consistently underperforming school to quickly change the school’s leadership.” Under this model, “by signing a petition, parents can force reorganization of a school’s management or conversion into a charter school.” That’s not a bad idea; however, I have a more radical suggestion– we need to hold our federal government to its Constitutional limitations. We must dismantle the Department of Education, end all federal education funding, end standardized testing, nullify all federal law regarding education in America, and allow the states, counties, towns and cities to create education models that best fit the needs of their children. “At the start of the compulsion era there were approximately 135,000 separate citizen school boards, perhaps more, each with seven to nine very solid and very local men and women as board members, watchdogs over the local institution… But local oversight promised nothing but trouble to those who wanted national uniformity…Inside of a century the number of boards was reduced to 15,000. And each decline in the absolute number of school boards made their composition less and less local” (John Taylor Gatto. Weapons of Mass Instruction: A Schoolteacher’s Journey through the Dark World of Compulsory Schooling). Without local oversight and control– without giving the power back to the people– this behemoth that is our national education system will never be reformed, and our children will continue to face academic stagnancy.

That’s the headline of a recent KSL article (with an exclamation point added in for emphasis) regarding a bill that will be considered in the upcoming 2012 legislative session. Sponsored by Utah Senator Casey Anderson and originally drafted by the Utah Tenth Amendment Center, this bill is simple: it upholds the Constitution.

It does so by clarifying the difference between intrastate and interstate commerce; the latter is a power delegated to the federal government, but states constitutionally retain the authority over intrastate commerce—items which are exchanged only within the state. This bill does for agriculture what was done for guns in 2010.

But rather than leading out with any substantive, principled information, KSL’s article focuses on one provision of the bill which would penalize agents of the state government for enforcing unconstitutional federal regulations on intrastate commerce. They claim that the criminalization would be for federal law, but legislative mandates which violate the Constitution are not in fact laws, and should not be treated as such. Thus, the bill upholds the Constitution by prohibiting agents of the state government from enforcing policies which run afoul of its provisions.

The Utah Democratic Chair eagerly jumped into the fray, commenting that “this is… another example of Republican Legislators who are out of touch with Utah common sense values.” It is unclear to which values Mr. Dabakis is referring, but to the extent that Utahns believe in the Constitution, liberty, and limited government, this bill is in harmony, and not out of touch, with those values.

Dabakis continues his misguided comments by suggesting that the bill’s sponsor “should think out his ideas first, before trying to codify them into law.” The near-apoplectic reaction to this bill, which seeks to have the state reclaim powers long usurped by the federal government, demonstrates a destructive and disappointing trend: willing federal serfdom.

Serfs, of course, were peasants in bondage who occupied and worked on a plot of land owned by the lord of the manor, in return for protection. The same could be said of farmers today: they own and work their land at the mercy of the federal government and its increasingly burdensome regulations, for if they run afoul of the “lord’s” mandates, swift punishment will be meted out. Their land is not ultimately their own, and can be managed, condemned, and confiscated by the “lord” if they disobey his decrees.

The Utah Tenth Amendment Center rejects this bondage and affirms the primacy of private property; farmers who choose to produce and ship their agriculture only within the bounds of the state have no constitutional responsibility to heed the lords of the FDA, and thus merit the protection and interposition of the state government. This bill accomplishes that liberty-minded goal.

Dabakis claims that Anderson should “should think out his ideas first” but we humbly suggest that it is he whose ideas need some intellectual consistency. For support of his position, he writes that “The State Legislature’s attorneys commented on Senator Anderson’s proposal, saying that any court would likely find the law unconstitutional.” The KSL article commented likewise: “Legislative attorneys attached a note to the bill saying there is a ‘high probability’ that a court would find it unconstitutional.”

As anybody who has worked with lawyers will tell you, it’s easy to find one who agrees with you. Pointing to the opinions of a single lawyer for intellectual support is hardly a convincing argument or intellectual checkmate. In fact, the legislative attorney’s opinion, which is at the bottom of the bill’s page, has serious problems and will likely be disregarded by legislators who understand the Constitution better than their employed lawyer.

The attorney claims that the bill’s “provisions raise issues relating to the Supremacy Clause” and then proceeds to cite that clause in his opinion as follows:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

When you see a lawyer purposefully exclude a portion of a constitutional reference, it’s likely that it was intentional, and quite often that exclusion is the key to better understanding the issue. So, too, with this legislative attorney. The clause reads, in full:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. (emphasis added)

Note the bolded text, which is the most important part of this clause. It makes clear that only those federal laws which are “made in pursuance” of the Constitution—in other words, those which are constitutional—can be considered supreme, and thus trump lesser, conflicting laws. By leaving that text out entirely, the lawyer attempts to deceive the legislature and build up the common, erroneous interpretation of the supremacy clause, which suggests that all federal laws trump lesser, conflicting laws. That is absolutely not the case. Given that the federal laws relating to food rely upon the commerce clause, only those commerce-related laws which are constitutional may be justified and bound upon the states. This leads us to the lawyer’s next paragraph.

The lawyer’s opinion argues, based on a horribly misguided Supreme Court case Wickard v. Filburn (and related cases) that the federal government has power over all commerce, extending even into a family’s home. In summary of these awful opinions by other lawyers, this lawyer writes: “The United States Supreme Court has recognized that Congress may regulate wholly intrastate conduct if the conduct has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.” In response to that laughably unconstitutional and anti-liberty opinion, this bill tells the feds to mind their own business by correctly interpreting, upholding, and enforcing the Constitution (unlike the black-robed lawyers at the Supreme Court during FDR’s administration) and by refusing to allow the federal government to micromanage and regulate commerce which never leaves Utah.

Just imagine the framers of the Constitution discussing with glee the empowerment of the federal government to tell a single farmer how much wheat he may grow, and upon what conditions. It’s laughable! And yet, as noted by Dabakis and KSL, the legislative lawyer concludes that there’s a “high probability” that the federal government won’t like being told that they can’t control anything and everything they want. Well, duh. The lawyer opines:

Based on the federal statutes and case law described above, there is a high probability that a court will find that this bill violates the Supremacy Clause to the extent that it: 1) conflicts with valid federal regulation of intrastate commerce; 2) makes it a crime for a government agent to enforce federal law; or 3) requires a court or the governor to uphold state law in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

Yes, the bill conflicts with federal regulation of intrastate commerce, but that regulation is not “valid,” nor is it constitutional. Yes, it makes it a crime for an agent of Utah to enforce an unconstitutional federal mandate; why would we justify the agents of our government in enforcing something that is invalid? And yes, it requires a court to uphold state law—not in violation of the Constitution, but in support of it.

This is a battle that deserves to be fought; farmers are being increasingly regulated and those who seek only to sell their produce within the state should not have to comply with a monstrous federal bureaucracy whose mandates are often anti-competitive as a result of the incestuous revolving door between regulators and agribusiness executives. Utah farmers need and deserve the interposition and protection of the state in upholding the Constitution and rejecting mandates which run afoul of that important document. This bill provides such an opportunity to legislators this session. Please contact your legislators (find them here) and encourage them to support bill SB34.

Arguing before the Superior Court of Massachusetts in 1761, attorney James Otis argued for five hours against the legality of writs of assistance. These writs, which served as general search warrants that did not expire, allowed government officials to search an individual’s person or property at any time, and for any (or no) reason, without having to obtain a specific warrant that described in detail the person, place, or thing to be searched.

Retained by a group of Boston merchants for the case, Otis was well-versed in the abuses of these writs. When speaking before the Court, he related the story of one Mr. Ware, who in retaliation for having been brought before a court on charges of using profanity on the Sabbath, used a writ he had been granted to search through the judge’s home for smuggled goods, as well as the house of the constable who had brought him to the court. Similar abuses of the power to search and seize were quickly becoming commonplace.

Despite his passionate and persuasive speech, Otis lost to the government lawyers. Jeremiah Gridley, representing the customs officials, argued:

It is true the common privileges of Englishmen are taken away in this Case, but even their privileges are not so in case of Crime and fine. ‘Tis the necessity of the Case and the benefit of the Revenue that justifies this Writ. Is not the Revenue the sole support of Fleets & Armies abroad, & Ministers at home? without which the Nation could neither be preserved from the Invasion of her foes, nor the Tumults of her own Subjects. Is not this I say infinitely more important, that the imprisonment of Thieves, or even Murderers? yet in these Cases ’tis agreed Houses may be broken open.

Citing plenty of precedent along with his argument, Gridley was effectively employing the argument that the end justifies the means. As the government deemed it necessary to sustain the public coffers by suppressing contraband and ensuring commerce traveled through the government’s regulation and taxation apparatus, the argument was that writs were necessary to help achieve that goal—even if it meant infringing upon the liberties of citizens subjected to the invasive writs.

This type of argument has become frequently used in our own day. When a six year old was recently molested at the airport by government agents, the TSA sought to quell any opposition by matter-of-factly stating that the action was justified and legal because procedures were followed. Wrote the TSA’s propagandist Blogger Bob:

A video taken of one of our officers patting down a six year-old has attracted quite a bit of attention. Some folks are asking if the proper procedures were followed. Yes. TSA has reviewed the incident and the security officer in the video followed the current standard operating procedures.

In response to news that Utah will be following Texas, the TSA’s Denver office issued a statement that the agency would “work directly with concerned Utah legislators to explain the current threat environment that we operate in and the countermeasures we deploy to protect travelers.” The statement further noted that the pat-downs of innocent passengers not suspected of any crimes “are conducted fully in accordance with federal law”—this despite the glaring conflict with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The comparisons here are quite obvious, but worth mentioning. With the writs of assistance, the government justified its egregious abuses of power by claiming that they were legal. Indeed, based on court precedent and parliamentary statute, the writs were “legal.” The TSA likewise points to congressional statue and bureaucratic regulations which justify their procedures, and claim that since “proper procedures were followed,” that it’s completely acceptable that a stranger with a badge and blue gloves feel up men, women, and little children—touching private parts of the body and placing his/her hands within that victim’s pants.

Further, it was argued by the King’s administration that the writs were needed to help ensure the most ideal outcome; liberties would need to be sacrificed in order to ensure that sufficient revenue were raised to pay for defending the colonies and the King’s empire from its enemies. Today, the TSA produces a never-ending stream of justifications, similarly claiming that liberties must be sacrificed in order to keep people safe from terrorists. The ends, we’re told, justify whatever means the government wants to impose upon us.

The TSA is not alone in its brazen self-justification; plenty of other federal agencies and departments, if not all of them, cite statute, precedent, and policy to support whatever actions they think they can get away with. Other examples may be helpful to illustrate this point.

Despite a constitutional denial of authority to regulate intrastate commerce, the FDA’s former general counsel insists that the FDA “has the authority to regulate any food commodity that is offered for sale, regardless of whether it is purchased in the state in which it is grown.” Their burdensome and intrusive regulations, touching even the roadside fruit salesman, are argued as justified and legal because of congressional statute and a growing body of precedent. It’s also to protect the public safety from food poisoning, of course.

Barack Obama has recently sought to justify his use of military aggression in Libya without congressional approval by claiming that the war is not “war” per se, but rather mostly “participation” involving “non-kinetic support” as well as “kinetic attacks” on targets of the “NATO-led” forces. “We are no longer in the lead,” says Obama, supposedly using this argument to flout the law he is clearly violating. His argument is no different than those above: this action is justified because of the desired ends, and because there exists legal support, even though semantical gymnastics are required to obtain it.

Whether the issue is raw milk, copulating rabbits, light bulbs, the PATRIOT Act, or almost any other federal action, the government will justify its actions with whatever arguments it can. Power corrupts, yes, but corruption powers government.

Although Otis and his clients lost their case against the writs of assistance, they were able to turn the writ into a rallying cry that helped ignite a revolution. Opposition to the writ within the colonies heated in the hot embers of civil disobedience, and exploded into armed resistance soon thereafter. John Adams, who as a young man was present to hear Otis’ passionate plea for liberty, wrote that from the opposition to the writ “the child Independence was born. In fifteen years, namely in 1776, he grew up to manhood and declared himself free.”

Though defeated in court, the colonial patriots recognized an opportunity to revolt and escalate the conflict. Rather than seeing their defeat as an obstacle, they converted it into a catalyst that helped win over the public and increased the calls for independence.

Being molested by a TSA agent, or being shut down by an FDA bureaucrat, or being fined by an IRS tax collector, or being deployed to combat in an unconstitutional and immoral war, or having your records accessed by a snooping government desk jockey—these and far too many other daily occurrences are not the end of the fight for liberty. They can and should be just the beginning.

The child Independence, having long ago grown up to manhood, has for too long been on life support in a dilapidated resting home. Today’s steady stream of tyranny provides ample opportunity to create a potent rallying cry that helps ignite another (hopefully peaceful) revolution. The need is perhaps greater than it was two centuries ago.

The question before us is: who is our James Otis?

But as that article explains, Texas is not alone, nor is this war against invasive searches and seizures over. In fact, it’s just beginning. We revealed in that article that at least ten states will be considering related legislation. Today we can announce that Utah will be one of those states entering the fray.

Carl Wimmer and one other legislator (unnamed for now, as he hasn’t yet made his involvement public) are reviewing the legislation from the five other states who have worked on this type of bill already, and will be compiling the various ideas and issues into a bill that will be presented for consideration in the 2012 general session next January.

In an assault on the Fourth Amendment protection against searches and seizures without probable cause and a warrant, the TSA is screening innocent passengers in the nation’s airports (and elsewhere), including the one in Salt Lake City. The unjust and unnecessary molestation of men, women, and children who are not reasonably believed to be carrying any contraband nor intending to jeopardize the public’s safety must stop.

Utah will have an opportunity to uphold the Fourth Amendment early next year and protect the individual rights of those who have completely innocent and do not deserve such treatment. Please encourage your representatives to watch for and support this bill.

The ceremonial signing will be held Tuesday, May 10 at 3:30 MST in Utah State Capitol Rotunda. Officially signed March 23rd, the ceremonial signing will be a chance for all Utah citizens to witness this important event. The new law will serve as a model for other states to build from as the efforts for restoring the United States’ constitutional line continue to move forward across the country.

This law outlines the mechanics for evaluating all federal legislation and any mandates associated with the legislation. The Constitutional Defense Council will now be required to evaluate and respond to any legislation. Initial evaluation will be done by the newly created Federalism Subcommittee of the Constitutional Defense Council. The Federalism Subcommittee will be chaired by either the Governor or Lt. Governor as well as other elected legislators and members outlined in the bill. This puts the people’s elected officials directly responsible for upholding our U.S. Constitution as their Oath of Office also requires.

Federalism is the unique addition to political science created through the Constitution. It is the standard by which a large, complex compound republic is able to prosper while maintaining liberty and security in a free society. Many are familiar with the concepts of ‘separation of power’ and the idea of ‘checks and balances’ yet many today are not as familiar with federalism. One thing many are hearing more about today is 10th Amendment activism in response to an ever growing federal government. The 10th Amendment is the keystone for securing federalism and is the final amendment in the Bill of Rights.

In his book, Where’s the Line?, Ken Ivory writes, “…the specific reason for establishing a “compound republic” was to divide constitutional powers between the States and federal government so that the States would check and control any unauthorized action by the federal government. “ (p. 6) Alexander Hamilton summed it up during his speech before the New York Ratifying Convention in 1788.

The balance between the National and State governmentsought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a double security to the people. If one encroaches on their rights they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from over passing their constitutional limits by certain rivalship, which will ever subsist between them. (emphasis added)

Both federal and State governments agreed, through ratification, on their roles in maintaining a civil society. The constitutional line has been blurred to a point of near elimination over the past century and a half. Utah is taking the responsibility of federalism serious as the efforts increase to reestablish the line which will help restore the rights of the people and the responsibility for everyone in securing the blessings of liberty.

The core component of this new law is the legalized recognition of gold and silver coins (issued by the federal government) as legal currency within the state. They may be used voluntarily by consenting parties, and rather than recognizing the face value of the coin (a horribly distorted metric of the coin’s worth), the market price of the gold or silver content is recognized as its value.

Further, the law provides for relief from certain taxes, including sales tax and capital gains tax. As gold and silver are rightly considered a currency and not a commodity, when in coin form, it is ludicrous to consider the exchange of dollars for gold a “purchase” subject to a sales tax. One does not pay sales tax when going to the bank to exchange a dollar for a peso, yuan, or other fiat note. It follows, then, that the exchange of currency between a dollar and gold or silver should likewise be exempt. This new law provides for that common sense tax exemption.

This foundational piece of legislation, upon which other bills will hopefully be based, offers Utah businesses, taxpayers, and consumers the ability to more easily transact in a currency that is not subject to massive depreciation and manipulation. Competing currencies are an excellent idea that benefits everybody (as opposed to just the government), and the ability Utahns now have to move between dollars and specie without the previous tax burden should spur a variety of economic enterprises and exchanges worth watching in the coming years.

In 1966, prior to his reign at the Fed and corresponding embrace of statism and power, Alan Greenspan was a champion of gold. He published an article in Ayn Rand’s newsletter on the subject, a portion of which reads:

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.

He was right. While this new law does not create a gold standard, it does constitutionally restore the ability for gold and silver to be used as legal tender within the state, and puts the fiat dollar on notice that it now has competition. Ultimately, the success of this law will be determined by the market’s acceptance and implementation of its provisions. We will be waiting with great interest to see what develops in the coming months as a result.