This is a great commercial from the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Fiat Money is Unconstitutional
Fiat money has taken over the world. There is nothing really good about it either (unless you work for the government). The inflationary tendencies of fiat money are a hidden form of taxation. The lack of any commodity backing leaves the value of our money at the whim of the U.S. Government and the Federal Reserve (which is neither federal, nor a reserve).
Thus, I wrote the following in support of House Bill 853, which establishes a commission to study the effects of fiat money on the wealth of New Hampshire citizens. The commission, as written, would only study the effects on wealth; I think we need to also look into the constitutional questions surrounding fiat money:
Fiat Money: “Legal tender, especially paper currency, authorized by a government but not based on or convertible into gold or silver.” – American Heritage Dictionary
Thus, I wrote the following in support of House Bill 853, which establishes a commission to study the effects of fiat money on the wealth of New Hampshire citizens. The commission, as written, would only study the effects on wealth; I think we need to also look into the constitutional questions surrounding fiat money:
Fiat Money: “Legal tender, especially paper currency, authorized by a government but not based on or convertible into gold or silver.” – American Heritage Dictionary
“No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts” – Constitution of the
Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution provides that the states may only pay off debts with gold and silver coin. The definition of debt from West’s Encyclopedia of American Law: “A sum of money that is owed or due to be paid because of an express agreement; a specified sum of money that one person is obligated to pay and that another has the legal right to collect or receive.” All of the State of
Furthermore, the article says that States may not use “any Thing but gold and silver” for payment of these debts. “Any Thing” can in no way be construed to mean Federal Reserve Notes or any other fiat money.
Therefore, all money, except for gold and silver, is prohibited from use as payment of debts. The State of
The Coinage Act of 1792 was the first act related to money after the passage of the Constitution. It can be reasonably asserted that all the money referenced in the Coinage Act is in line with the Constitution, given that both documents were greatly influenced by many of the same authors.
All money to be minted was made of gold and silver, except cents and half-cents, which were copper. The coinage and money referenced in the Constitution is the same money that is prescribed for in the Coinage Act.
One denomination of money mentioned in the Coinage Act was a “dollar”. Today’s Americans would almost certainly associate the word dollar with the Federal Reserve Note that bears the likeness of George Washington. However, this association is wrong.
The Federal Reserve “dollar” is not the dollar that is provided for in the Constitution. The Constitution references the word “dollar” twice. The Coinage Act defines a dollar as follows:“Dollar - each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver.”
In fact, the use of the Spanish milled dollar in
The dollar, in its constitutional context, is based on the silver Spanish milled dollar, and has nothing to do with today’s Federal Reserve “dollar”.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Senate Bill 44: Shot Down
Senate Bill 44, which aimed to put restrictions on the issuance of concealed carry licenses, was unanimously defeated in a Senate committee this past Thursday. I would say that a conservative estimation would put the number of people in attendance at about 200. Other estimates, including those by Gun Owners of New Hampshire, have put the number in attendance at almost 600!
Only three people testified in favor of the bill: one sponsor and two police chiefs. There were dozens that testified in opposition, including members of gun organizations and even one of the co-sponsors. The Chair of the committee saw that there was overwhelming opposition to the bill and therefore ended testimony and moved the bill to a vote. There was essentially no debate among the committee and the bill was promptly voted Inexpedient to Legislate (DEAD).
This was a good victory for gun owners. We showed those in power that we will not stand for any limitation on our right to keep and bear arms!
In Libertate,
Tyler
Only three people testified in favor of the bill: one sponsor and two police chiefs. There were dozens that testified in opposition, including members of gun organizations and even one of the co-sponsors. The Chair of the committee saw that there was overwhelming opposition to the bill and therefore ended testimony and moved the bill to a vote. There was essentially no debate among the committee and the bill was promptly voted Inexpedient to Legislate (DEAD).
This was a good victory for gun owners. We showed those in power that we will not stand for any limitation on our right to keep and bear arms!
In Libertate,
Tyler
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Thursday, March 15th: Important Hearings!
This is a repost from the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance website:
If AT ALL possible, meet at 8:00 AM in the State House Cafeteria.
Here's a map to the State House; here's a map to the Legislative Office Building (it's right behind the State House)
If you can't be there at 8:00 AM, come as early in the day as you can. The last hearing (on "Real-ID") will start at 3:00 PM.
We will break for lunch.
All you need to do is show up.
You don't need to testify. You don't need to be a member of any party or organization.
You just need to be a New Hampshire resident who values FREEDOM.
Your mere presence as a concerned citizen will make all the difference!
A day like this happens rarely -- just one or two times in a legislative session.
We understand people have responsibilities with work, school, and family.
If there is one day you can arrange to be free of those responsibilities, make it Thursday, March 15th.
If you can take a sick day, this is a good day to do so. If you can hire a babysitter, this is a good day to do so.
If you would normally be in school at this time, take this day to learn more about Government than you ever will in a classroom.
This day is an investment not only in your freedoms, but in those of your friends, your neighbors, and your children.
Please forward this message to anyone you feel could benefit from it.
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact the NH Liberty Alliance: info@nhliberty.org
15 Mar 2007 - 8:00am
15 Mar 2007 - 4:30pm
Thursday, March 15th is a critical day for Liberty in the State of New Hampshire
On that day, the legislature will hold public hearings for input on four key pieces of legislation.- The New Hampshire Liberty Alliance (NHLA) opposes:
- SB 44, which would limit New Hampshire's "shall-issue" firearm licensing, 9:00 AM State House room 103
- HB 819, which would assert an employee's right to work, whether or not the employee is a member of a union, 10:00 AM Representatives' Hall
- HB 906, requiring Fully Informed Juries, 10:30 AM Legislative Office Building room 208
- HB 685, which would opt New Hampshire out of the Federal "Real-ID" program, 3:00 PM Legislative Office Building room 203
The NHLA supports:
If AT ALL possible, meet at 8:00 AM in the State House Cafeteria.
Here's a map to the State House; here's a map to the Legislative Office Building (it's right behind the State House)
If you can't be there at 8:00 AM, come as early in the day as you can. The last hearing (on "Real-ID") will start at 3:00 PM.
We will break for lunch.
All you need to do is show up.
You don't need to testify. You don't need to be a member of any party or organization.
You just need to be a New Hampshire resident who values FREEDOM.
Your mere presence as a concerned citizen will make all the difference!
A day like this happens rarely -- just one or two times in a legislative session.
We understand people have responsibilities with work, school, and family.
If there is one day you can arrange to be free of those responsibilities, make it Thursday, March 15th.
If you can take a sick day, this is a good day to do so. If you can hire a babysitter, this is a good day to do so.
If you would normally be in school at this time, take this day to learn more about Government than you ever will in a classroom.
This day is an investment not only in your freedoms, but in those of your friends, your neighbors, and your children.
Please forward this message to anyone you feel could benefit from it.
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact the NH Liberty Alliance: info@nhliberty.org
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Second Amendment Victory
Probably one of the few good things to come out Washington D.C. lately is a decision by the District of Columbia federal court that found D.C.'s ban on handguns (and other firearms restrictions) unconstitutional. The decision is a huge victory for everyone, especially gun owners in our nation's capital. The door now may be open for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether the Second Amendment - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" - is an individual or "collective" right.
In their historic decision, the D.C. court said they "conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms." They continue on further by saying "[t]hat right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution..." and it was seen as a means of "resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)." Probably the best language I have heard a court use in a long time; it actually sounds like they read the constitution for once.
Many onlookers see this as an opportunity for the Supreme Court to finally rule on the true meaning of the Second Amendment. The only time the court came close was in USA v. Miller (1939) and that ruling was ambiguous enough to have both sides of the gun control debate claiming victory. If our highest court upholds the decision of the D.C. justices, it could lead to greater freedom of law-abiding people to own and carry firearms.
I can merely relate to you that this is a great victory for the rights of gun owners. To feel the real meaning of the words you must read the decision for yourself (second link). It could take quite a while for the Supreme Court to hear the arguments for this case. I recommend trying to fight Senate Bill 44, here in New Hampshire, while we wait for the 9 justices to render their decision.
In Libertate,
Tyler
In their historic decision, the D.C. court said they "conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms." They continue on further by saying "[t]hat right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution..." and it was seen as a means of "resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)." Probably the best language I have heard a court use in a long time; it actually sounds like they read the constitution for once.
Many onlookers see this as an opportunity for the Supreme Court to finally rule on the true meaning of the Second Amendment. The only time the court came close was in USA v. Miller (1939) and that ruling was ambiguous enough to have both sides of the gun control debate claiming victory. If our highest court upholds the decision of the D.C. justices, it could lead to greater freedom of law-abiding people to own and carry firearms.
I can merely relate to you that this is a great victory for the rights of gun owners. To feel the real meaning of the words you must read the decision for yourself (second link). It could take quite a while for the Supreme Court to hear the arguments for this case. I recommend trying to fight Senate Bill 44, here in New Hampshire, while we wait for the 9 justices to render their decision.
In Libertate,
Tyler
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Down with the Bar Association!
I love House Bill 670. It is a shining example of the kind of bill our legislators should be introducing (click here for an example of bad legislation).
The basic goal behind this bill is to repeal the incorporation of the New Hampshire Bar Association. The Bar is basically the group that all of those in legal profession claim membership to. Essentially, the sponsor believes that the Bar is an unconstitutional corporate monopoly. And I believe he is correct in his assertion. The Bar holds an effective monopoly on the legal profession in New Hampshire.
As you can see from the Secretary of State's site, the New Hampshire Bar is registered as a non-profit corporation. Now I will cite Part II, Article 83 of the New Hampshire Constitution:
Another prestigious government authority rose in opposition citing a New Hampshire Supreme Court case where the justices declared that the Bar Association is under the direct authority of the Court. What? Once again, in Article 83, it says:
Unfortunately, the House of Representatives will almost certainly kill this bill. It is a sad day when our legislators no longer have any respect for the sacred document that is our Constitution.
In Libertate,
Tyler
The basic goal behind this bill is to repeal the incorporation of the New Hampshire Bar Association. The Bar is basically the group that all of those in legal profession claim membership to. Essentially, the sponsor believes that the Bar is an unconstitutional corporate monopoly. And I believe he is correct in his assertion. The Bar holds an effective monopoly on the legal profession in New Hampshire.
As you can see from the Secretary of State's site, the New Hampshire Bar is registered as a non-profit corporation. Now I will cite Part II, Article 83 of the New Hampshire Constitution:
Free and fair competition in the trades and industries is an inherent and essential right of t he people and should be protected against all monopolies and conspiracies which tend to hinder or destroy it. The size and functions of all corporations should be so limited and regulated as to prohibit fictitious capitalization and provision should be made for the supervision and government thereof.I think that pretty much goes to show that the Bar is unconstitutional. Not so fast, say the government employees (who go to testify in opposition to this bill on behalf of government agency using our tax dollars). One such bureaucrat claimed that the Bar is "not really a private corporation; it is part public and part private so it is in a unique situation." So because the government says so, the Bar does not have to follow the same rules as everyone else? I think its time that we figure out exactly which it is; they can't have their cake and it too.
Another prestigious government authority rose in opposition citing a New Hampshire Supreme Court case where the justices declared that the Bar Association is under the direct authority of the Court. What? Once again, in Article 83, it says:
Therefore, all just power possessed by the state is hereby granted to the general court to enact laws to prevent the operations within the state of all persons and associations, and all trusts and corporations, foreign or domestic, and the officers thereof, who endeavor to raise the price of any article of commerce or to destroy free and fair competition in the trades and industries through combination, conspiracy, monopoly, or any other unfair means...The general court is the constitutionally given name for the New Hampshire legislature. It would be pretty hard to construe that with Supreme Court. How exactly does the Supreme Court think that gives them the authority over the Bar? And why would any reasonable legislator not realize it is their duty to break apart this unconstitutional monopoly?
Unfortunately, the House of Representatives will almost certainly kill this bill. It is a sad day when our legislators no longer have any respect for the sacred document that is our Constitution.
In Libertate,
Tyler
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Senate Bill 44 - The Beginning of the End
Alright, maybe it isn't the beginning of the end, but there is nothing good about this piece of legislation.
Senate Bill 44, to be heard on March 15th at 9 AM in room 103 of the State House, aims to change a few different things regarding New Hampshire's concealed carry laws for pistols and revolvers.
It first adds a little clause that states an issuing authority may deny a person a license if "the official reasonably believes [them] to be a member of a terrorist or criminal organization, as shown by sworn affidavit by such official or other law enforcement official or any other reliable person." Who determines criteria for a terrorist or criminal organization? Well, to the best of my knowledge, the government can label any group a terrorist or criminal organization. Gun Owners of New Hampshire could be considered a criminal organization for advocating gun rights.
That single clause moves New Hampshire from a shall-issue state to a may-issue state. Currently, the issuing authority can only deny a license to a person that is not allowed to own firearms under state or federal law, essentially only convicted felons and domestic abusers. SB 44 opens the licensing process up to the sometimes misguided whims of local police officers. A personal vendetta or even a lack of belief in gun rights could lead the issuing authority to deny a license to an otherwise able person.
Under current law there is a pretty good accountability system if the issuing authority abuses their power and does not issue a license when they should have. A person can sue the issuing officer and the entity they are associated with. So the police chief is more likely to behave himself if he knows that he is personally liable. The officer would be held accountable for his actions and could be forced to pay the attorney's fees of the disgruntled party. The burden of proof for denying a concealed carry license is on the issuing authority, and they can be forced to pay attorney's fees if they knowingly broke the law.
Now to the part they changed with this bill. The sponsors first strike the reference to officers being personally liable. They then up the ante on when attorney's fees can be awarded: from a knowing violation to gross negligence or malice. Much of the accountability is removed from the government. Let me quote a section of Article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution: "Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive."
I don't think they could have conceived a more horrible bill (save banning guns outright). If passed, abuse of authority would be much easier. We need to protect Article 2-a of the New Hampshire Constitution: " All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state." One of the best ways to properly defend yourself with firearms is through concealed carry of a handgun.
Please contact your Representatives and Senators and tell them NO on SB 44!
In Libertate,
Tyler
Senate Bill 44, to be heard on March 15th at 9 AM in room 103 of the State House, aims to change a few different things regarding New Hampshire's concealed carry laws for pistols and revolvers.
It first adds a little clause that states an issuing authority may deny a person a license if "the official reasonably believes [them] to be a member of a terrorist or criminal organization, as shown by sworn affidavit by such official or other law enforcement official or any other reliable person." Who determines criteria for a terrorist or criminal organization? Well, to the best of my knowledge, the government can label any group a terrorist or criminal organization. Gun Owners of New Hampshire could be considered a criminal organization for advocating gun rights.
That single clause moves New Hampshire from a shall-issue state to a may-issue state. Currently, the issuing authority can only deny a license to a person that is not allowed to own firearms under state or federal law, essentially only convicted felons and domestic abusers. SB 44 opens the licensing process up to the sometimes misguided whims of local police officers. A personal vendetta or even a lack of belief in gun rights could lead the issuing authority to deny a license to an otherwise able person.
Under current law there is a pretty good accountability system if the issuing authority abuses their power and does not issue a license when they should have. A person can sue the issuing officer and the entity they are associated with. So the police chief is more likely to behave himself if he knows that he is personally liable. The officer would be held accountable for his actions and could be forced to pay the attorney's fees of the disgruntled party. The burden of proof for denying a concealed carry license is on the issuing authority, and they can be forced to pay attorney's fees if they knowingly broke the law.
Now to the part they changed with this bill. The sponsors first strike the reference to officers being personally liable. They then up the ante on when attorney's fees can be awarded: from a knowing violation to gross negligence or malice. Much of the accountability is removed from the government. Let me quote a section of Article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution: "Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive."
I don't think they could have conceived a more horrible bill (save banning guns outright). If passed, abuse of authority would be much easier. We need to protect Article 2-a of the New Hampshire Constitution: " All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state." One of the best ways to properly defend yourself with firearms is through concealed carry of a handgun.
Please contact your Representatives and Senators and tell them NO on SB 44!
In Libertate,
Tyler
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)