Because YouTube said so…

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 23, 2009

A question arises, in this modern age, as to whether reading is a dying art that will soon be replaced by video presentations.  Is one capable of deception, more than the other is?  Does one provoke more thought than the other does?  Is one healthier than the other is?

In May 1993, a video production by an Indiana BAR attorney was making its way around the country.  It was titled: “Waco – The Big Lie” (I use this video as an example since, though old, it was one of the first of the “patriot” videos to use mass deception through this means).The video focused, primarily, on the use of a flame-throwing tank alleged to have been used by the FBI in igniting the Mt. Carmel Church on fire — which resulted in the death of nearly 100 people.

As the narrator described the events, you see a tank gun barrel jammed through the wall of a portion of the building.  As the tank withdrew, there was a flame colored element along the side of the tank.  Along with the voice of the narrator and the footage, thousands of people became outraged that the government would use a flame-throwing tank to immolate these people in their own home.  Even some of the Davidians, after watching the video, began to believe that the government had reached an extreme level of depredation by these actions.

A few months later, Mike McNulty (C.O.P.S.) obtained the entire footage of the event.  There was more footage both before and after the brief episode shown on the above-described video, which plainly demonstrated that the narration was grossly in error.  Though there were many other indications of the absence of a flamethrower, the most apparent was when the apparent “flame” fell to the ground — and bounced.

If both videos were watched without the benefit of a narrator, a more honest evaluation of the events was apparent — there was no flame-throwing tank at Waco.  When the narrator has a purpose or mindset, all you get from the video is the narrow channel that he is willing to give you.

On the other hand, written accounts of what happened on April 19, 1993 provide many descriptions of events that were not captured on video, and probably give the most realistic picture of what occurred, even though these accounts were also subject to the bias of the reporter.

This tends to support the contention that videos might misrepresent events, leading us to false conclusions as to what really happened, more so than print or written media.

Let us look at initiation of the thought process while reading and watching videos.

How often, when watching a video, say, a movie, or, more significantly, and informational video, do you stop and rewind the video so that you can ‘capture’ or grasp what was said or presented?  I know that I have done this, many times.  Sometimes it has gotten so frustrating that I am more willing to leave a part not understood than return and watch it again.

In fact, when I am watching a video, especially an informational one, I find that I have to develop a complete reliance on the presenter.  He sets the pace — and, I must abide by that pace.  There is little, if any, time to reflect on or contemplate what was said — until after the video is over.

However, when reading, I set the pace.  If I wish to contemplate something that was written, I simple divert my eyes and direct my mind to evaluate that subject which has grasped my attention.  If I encounter something that is not quite clear, in my mind, without effort, I return and reread the particular objet of my concern.  Moreover, as far as visualizing, well, I have often paused during the course of the reading to visualize the setting or event that provokes the desire to do so.

I suppose that this can be compared to movies and books of the same title.  A very good example is “2001: A Space Odyssey”.  I know that I saw the movie, first.  It was many months before I was able to read the book.  Upon reading the book, I was, all of a sudden, able to impart meaning to many of the events that occurred in the movie that had more appearance of visual sensationalism than of comprehensive reflection of an idea.  Upon watching the movie a second time, many of the confusing or not quite clear parts of the movie really made sense — because the book had laid the foundation.

This has been true of many other book/movies that I have read/seen.  To me, it is clear that much more pleasure and understanding comes from reading rather than the expedient of watching.

I have watched a number of YouTube presentations on subjects dear to the Patriot community.  One that I was direct to the other days is broken into segments.  I watched the first segment and listened as the guy told me what he was going to do.  But, he did nothing except describe, in sinister terms, an organization that was politically motivated and was seeking influence on Capitol Hill.  No, it was not about the NRA or GOA, but it was only different in its purpose, and, probably better funded.

In another rather lengthy presentation, dealing with legal status, I watched over an hour of a two-hour presentation.  In all that I watch, though many ‘legal’ opinions were given, not one shred of legal material was cited.  I am left to either believe, or not believe that which is presented.  If I am not prone to researching to find the evidence that either supports or disproves what has been presented, then I am left fully at the mercy of the person presenting the video.  At this point, quite often what we accept as the truth is either something that is well presented (theatrically) or says something that we wanted to hear, anyway (Waco flame-throwing tank, for instance).

At this point, many of us will become advocates of some presentation, or another.  There are two reasons for this advocacy.  First is that we believe what we have heard and want others to believe what we have heard — so we ask them to watch the video and believe what is heard.  Then, we have something in common!

The second possibility is that we are not sure whether we should believe what we heard.  It is easier to encourage others to watch the video and then to see if they believe what was presented, or, if they find fault with it, and, hopefully, will bring that fault to our attention (even though we really do not want it).  It is more likely that the person that we have asked to watch the video, whether they find fault with it, or not, will never bring it to our attention.  Why should they tend to take away from the communication between us that has developed, even if only to the extent of suggesting that they watch the video, by presenting what appears to be fault within the presentation?  It is better to let sleeping dogs lie.  If, however, they did bring forward their concerns over the information within the video, we would, most likely, not want to talk with them, any more.  After all, they challenged what we offered them, and, more importantly, they challenged our belief system.  We Don’t Need Them!

So, let us look at whether one method is, perhaps, healthier than the other is.  Videos are watched in a computer room (or equivalent), television room or movie theatre. Restricted space, often less than comfortable surroundings and, at best, filtered air.  Reading, however, can be conducted nearly anywhere.  Outside is a nice place to read, in pleasant weather, and is fresh air at its best.  Reading can be interrupted for other responsibilities, and returned to, at any time.  It can fill in otherwise wasted time, if the book is available.

But, probably most significantly, reading burns more than three times as many calories as watching videos.  A chart at discovery.com informs me that, with my 200 pounds, I burn 181 calories for 2 hours of video watching and 597 calories in 2 hours of reading.

In this modern age, where video production has become a hobby, conducted by hundreds of thousands of people, and presented to even  greater numbers through media such as YouTube, we have become inundated, perhaps overwhelmed, by the proliferation of information This phenomenon has been dubbed “information overload”, and is a result of too, too much information.  We must settle on accepting that that does not challenge what we have learned to believe, regardless of how we came to believe what we do.

Sit back and reflect, however, on what the consequences might be if we accept erroneous or incorrect information; suppose that after years of effort, things only get worse; suppose that the time finally comes when our lives depend on what we do.  Do you want to stake your life on information that has not suffered a very critical review by you before you accept it is absolute truth?  Is your life worth it?

RifleStock 2011

RifleStock 2011 has been cancelled.

Effective March 10, 2011

RifleStock 2011 has been cancelled.

For information, see:

RifleStock 2011 Cancellation

and

RifleStock 2011 – Canceled   A more thorough explanation

 

 

 

 

 

May the Spirit of Christmas be with you.

And, may that Spirit abide within you, this coming year, as it did for our forefathers,

to give you the strength, as it did them,

to restore this country to the greatness, which they gave to us.

One Nation, under God.

 

Merry Christmas

(with no apology)

 

 

Habeas Corpus — what does it mean?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 4, 2010

Constitution, Article I, Section 9, clause 2:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Unlike most protections afforded in the Constitution as rights, this one is clearly set out as a “privilege”. This is because it can be suspended under certain conditions, though it has to be so stated to the public, when it is suspended.

* * *

The following is written as an explanation in response to a number of queries about my use of habeas corpus in an article entitled “What if I’m Arrested?“.

The article dealt with the circumstance surrounding a traffic ticket, though did not sufficiently support the reasoning behind the habeas corpus.  This is to expound upon that “great writ”.

This does not mean that “habeas corpus” will only work on a traffic ticket. I have not had the opportunity to test it on a larger scale.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Habeas corpus is a phrase that many of us learned in grade school.  Not that we really knew what it meant, but we were told how important it was and why it was even included as protected by the Constitution.  At best, we were told that it was “bring forth the body”, which, by definition, has some truth.

Today, the press only mentions habeas corpus when they are talking about death row decisions.  This is a nice diversion, because, since we didn’t really know what it meant, we are now prone to accept that if we ever find ourselves on death row, we can recall that fine “great writ of liberty” and, perhaps, prolong our demise.

So, let’s start by looking at what the legal definition(s) of habeas corpus is (are):

From Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition:

Habeas corpus acts.  The English statutes of 31 Car. II, c. 2, is the original and prominent habeas corpus act.  It was amended and supplemented by St. 56 Geo. III, c. 100.  Similar statutes have been enacted in all of the United States.  This act is regarded as the great constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.  See Art. I, § 9, U.S. Const.; 28 U.S.C.A. §2241 et seq.

Habeas corpus ad deliberandum et recipiendum.  A writ which is issued to remove, for trial, a person confined in one county to the county or place where the offense of which he is accused was committed.  Thus, it has been granted to remove a person in custody for contempt to take his trial for perjury in another county.

Habeas corpus ad faciendum et recipiendum.  A writ issuing in civil cases to remove the cause, as also the body of the defendant, from an inferior court to a superior court having jurisdiction, there are to be a disposed of.  It is also called “habeas corpus cum causa“.

Habeas corpus ad prosequendum.  A writ which is usually employed in civil cases to remove a person out of the custody of one court into that of another, in order that he may be sued and answer the action in the latter.

Habeas corpus ad satisfaciendum.  An English practice, a writ which issues when a prisoner has had a judgment against them in an action, and the plaintiff is desirous to bring him up to some superior court, to charge him with process of execution.

Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum.  A writ directed to the person detaining another, and commanding them to produce the body of the prisoner, or person detained.  This is the most common form of habeas corpus writ, the purpose of which is to test the legality of the detention or imprisonment; not whether he is guilty or innocent.  This writ is guaranteed by U.S. Const. Art I, §9, and by state constitutions.  See also 28 U.S.C.A. §2241 et seq.

This is the well known remedy in England and the United States for deliverance from illegal confinement, called by Sir William Blackstone the most celebrated writ and the English law, and the great and efficacious writ, in all manner of illegal confinement.  3 Bl.Comm. 129.  The “great writ of liberty”, issuing at common law out of the courts of Chancery, King’s Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer.

Habeas corpus ad testificandum.  The writ, meaning you have the body to testify, used to bring up a prisoner detained in a jail or prison to give evidence before the court.  Hottle v. District Court in and for Clinton County, 233 Iowa 904, 11 N.W.2d 30, 34; 3Bl.Comm. 130.

Now, I realize that this is getting rather confusing.  However, if you read them all, as well as the first, which sets out that history of the series of acts that constitute habeas corpus, you might have noted that one stands out from the rest.  If not, then, go back and reread Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum.  In so doing, you will note that Blackstone defined it as “the great writ of liberty“.  Darn, same language they used in school.

You will also note that, “the purpose of which is to test the legality of the detention“.  So, it appears that, perhaps, this, as in the game “Monopoly”, just might be a “Get Out of Jail Free” card.  Not quite!

Detention evokes an image of being constrained by chains, force, threat of force, or other means that keep you from doing what you wish to do.  So, I’ll use an example of what I wrote about in What if I’m Arrested?.  I was arrested.  I posted bail and was free, so long as I appeared in court at the time and place directed.  Though I was free to move about, while on bail, I was still, technically, detained.  I was under detention!  Likewise, if you have signed a traffic ticket, you have agreed to appear.  If you ask the officer issuing the citation, “If I do not sign this, will you take me to jail?”, he will affirm that he will take you to jail.  So, even though you may not have posted bail, you have, by your signature, bound yourself to self-imposed detention until such time as you appear.

New, if we understand just what “held to answer” (5th Amendment) means, that is that we are, technically detained, though perhaps not physically, when we are charged with a crime, we understand that the charge, requiring that you produce yourself at the required place and time, makes the detention a part of the charge, and the charge a part of the detention.  Neither can exist without the other.

Now, with that in mind, let’s look at the matter of detention.  When I did my “oral demand for habeas corpus” (What if I’m Arrested?), by challenging the court to produce the injured party, and demanding that that party be produced along with an affidavit or contract, I was challenging the detention associated with the charge.  The judge, apparently, agreed and decided to “nolle prosequi” (not prosecute) the case.  Thereby freeing me from both detention and charges.

Unlike the approach most often taken by those challenging jurisdiction (which this really was -jurisdiction over my body), who seek to get into common law courts, my approach was predicated on getting out of common law court by assuming that I was already in a common law court.  This created no argument with the judge, only the decision to grant me that common law right, or not.

For much more on Habeas Corpus, see

Habeas Corpus – Main Page  webpage

Habeas Corpus docketed in the U. S. Supreme Court  article

For the current status of the Habeas Corpus before the Supreme Court, see Habeas Corpus Suspended

 

 

 

a United States Militia

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 3, 2010

Often I see a suggestion that the federal government should enact statutes protecting the militia, perhaps even organizing and equipping it.  Well, to some extent that is provided for in the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8, clause 15:

Congress shall have the Power to….  To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

So, it can be called forth for certain purposes.

Article I, Section 8, clause 16:

Congress shall have the Power to…. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Organizing, arming, and disciplining are also included, extended even to governing, while in time of service to the country.  Significantly, however, the appointment of officers and training is left to the States.  This is important because it show the chain of command being to the State not the United States, (except as necessary when in service to the United States).  The officers know who writes their check, and, the members are trained by local people, though in accordance with the discipline provided by Congress.  The primary allegiance to the State is preserved.

Article II, Section 2, clause 1:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; …

Here is the exception mentioned above.  Only while in service to the country is the allegiance to the State even subordinated.

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.

Though State can also mean a country, in the context of the Constitution, it is one of the members of the Union created by the Constitution.  Here, quite clearly, the ability for the State to a free in its nature is assured by the only explanation of the need for the Militia — the security of a free State.

The following was enacted in 1916, with the exception of the provision for “female members of the National Guard (1973) and “unorganized militia” description (1958).  Exceptions (those not in the militia) are provided for in the next Section of the Code, but are irrelevant to this discussion.

10 U.S.C. § 311: Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are –
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So, let us look at what affect this Statute (United States Code provision) has on the entire concept of Militia.

Let’s suppose that the United States wanted to call forth the Militia, prior to 1916.  They would requisition from the states a quota to be filled.  The States, in their capacity, could refuse, if they wanted, to fill the quota.  I’m not sure where this would take us, since I am not aware of any instance where that happened, but, perhaps, that is why it never happened — that the federal government knew its limits and would not dare call the Militia under circumstances that it felt might generate a refusal.

April 18 & 19 were days of change for many colonists. One wife, Lucy Hosmer, kept a diary. The following includes excerpts from that Diary.

This was given to me, and, presumably written by, Nord Davis, Jr, Northpoint Teams.

Gary Hunt

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

The wind was blowing briskly over the chimney top, drawing the smoke from his hearth, as father sat thinking, the heat of the fire glazing his eyes. It was the spring of 1775. As the twilight began to fall on his modest home in Acton, Massachusetts, this young man wondered just what tomorrow would bring. His daily chores were done and an extra pile of wood had been stacked inside, handy for Hannah. He expected to be gone for a while. The leak around the chimney would have to wait for another day. There were important things to be done in the morning…

This young father had married his sweetheart, a lady named Hannah Leighton, of Acton. He had learned the gunsmithing trade. His personal future looked pretty good, and why not? He had built his own home, had a nice family, and a steady business repairing firearms. It had been a warm spring that year. According to the records, Hannah was occupied that evening with the children’s colds. Even the youngest of just fifteen months was letting the household know of her suffering and plight. The young man was left with is thoughts — Less than a dozen hours to muster. But, with spring in the air, everything going better than expected, how could he complain? How good it is to be free! We will settle some things tomorrow…

We might expect that any young man, as unusually blessed with a home, family and business, might tend to overlook the problems being created by some of the King’s men. After all, what could one do about such complex and far-reaching problems? Wasn’t his first duty to his family? Yes, but according to the Scriptures, there always comes a point when the affairs of the nation must come ahead of the needs of the family. This was one of those times. Fortunately, this was not a young man who simply looked to the rewards and the pleasures of the day. He was not one to close his eyes in a dream world of security, but one whose eyes, for his family’s sake, were fixed on the years ahead. Something had to be done about the Red Coats who were presuming themselves into the affairs of free men.

The Lord, he knew with certainty, had put him into a vital position to do some good. The Lord had called him to be the leader of men, and, as a gunsmith, his trade was to be needed on the cause of Liberty. Liberty, as he told Hannah, is never given by legislatures. It has always been obtained, and will be held, only by those who are willing to fight, and die, for it. When men cease to be willing to fight for it, it will only be a matter of time before free men are once again slaves of others. Months and months before, this young man — who had everything to both loose and fight for — organized a Company of Minutemen in his home town of Acton, Massachusetts. Acton? Who, today, has ever heard of such a place? Yes, we remember our history lessons about the brave men of Lexington and Concord. We know all about the midnight ride of Paul Revere and his group called the “Committee of Safety.” We can think of many others — but this young man and his Acton Militia, is generally unknown to even our most ardent patriots today. His name was Captain Issac Davis.

As Captain Davis sat watching the sparks crawling along the soot in the back of the fireplace that night, over in Concord a young wife, Mrs. Lucy Barnes Hosmer, was entering her concerns about the next day. In her diary* for Tuesday, April 18, 1775, she wrote:

I really don’t have time to spare from our household chores to write in this Journal–and yet, I must, to calm my nerves and enable me to think clearly about these perilous times. This I must surely do to help my husband, Joseph Hosmer, our four children, and our dear village of Concord. No shots have yet been fired but already we are a wartime community…

…for months now, our household, and those of our neighbors, have given over the major portions of our lives to the task of preparing Concord for war…what I mind more than the hiding of weapons is the need to watch out for Tories and spies amongst our own townspeople… Much of the time I am too busy to be anxious. But at night, after my work is done, I do worry and mainly about Joseph. Some of our neighbors say that all this anger at the Mother Country started here-abouts with the speech he gave last year at the Middlesex Convention when he defended our rights against Mr. Daniel Bliss, the famous Tory lawyer, who mocked our folly in resisting the mighty British empire and urged us all to stand loyally by King George and Old England.

I was proud of my husband that day. Mr. Bliss stood up in front of the Convention, handsome in his fine clothes, with a sarcastic smile on his face. Joseph was near the back of the room wearing a plain butternut suit that I had spun, wove, and dyed for him. At first he spoke slowly as if he was feeling his way with the words, but he wound up with such eloquence that he confounded Mr. Bliss and set our neighbors on fire with new ideas of our rights and freedom. Folks, even lawyer Bliss himself, they say, has been naming my Joseph the most dangerous man in Concord, ever since. And that makes me both proud and frightened. Joseph is thirty-nine years old now and our neighbors say his influence over the young men of the town is strong, and where he leads, they’ll follow.

Yesterday, the Committee of Safety ordered the dispersal of the military supplies here in Concord into the neighboring towns. Last night Joseph and I drove by ox team two wagon loads of ammunition from Acton to hide on Deacon Jonathan Hosmer’s farm there. His twenty-year-old son, Abner, is Joseph’s third cousin and an Acton Minuteman.

Lucy Hosmer was quite correct. Abner Hosmer was not only an Acton Minutemen, but Captain Davis’s right-hand man! Just before dawn on April 19, 1775, Captain Davis quietly mustered his men. All equipment was checked out. Abner Hosmer was there and his training was to meter out the cadence on his drum — 120 beats to the minute. Carrying a drum, he would go into battle unarmed. James Haywood was there. The fifer, Luther Blanchard, got there just as the red morning sun stabbed its welcome light through the naked trees surrounding the Davis homestead. This was the day that this Company had been training for, and the Acton Minutemen were ready. Captain Davis had not only trained his men well, but as you will learn here for the first time, instilled in them an unusual spirit of dedication to God and Country.

“All present and accounted for, Sir!” a sergeant quietly called out, and the small band of men moved out for their six mile march to Concord. Every second, on the second, came the beat of Abner’s drum. The fifer was silent. It was in Concord that the King’s men were searching, house to house, for arms — but now you know where they were — in Deacon Hosmer’s barn in Acton, and driven there by a courageous woman named Lucy, just the night before! Yes, yes, there was the serious matter concerning taxation, and other grievances against the Parliament, but at the level of the Acton and Concord Minutemen, the issue was the confiscation of firearms. Today they would be called assault weapons.

Well, you know much of the rest of the story. Some three hundred patriots converged on Concord from the surrounding towns and villages to confront the Red Coats. It was about 10 o’clock AM and the village of Concord was nearly deserted. The women and children had left to be safe with friends. All the Minutemen were assembled on the north side of town near the North Bridge where six companies of British soldiers were posted to attack.

Lucy Hosmer wrote:

The reverend William Emerson, who is always impetuous (even Phebe, his wife, says so) proposed: “Let’s go after them and fight ’em right now!” But Colonel Barrett ignored this from The Cloth and ordered our men to withdraw to a position on the heights above the North Bridge where they would be near enough to see what was going on there.

I have inserted this information from Lucy to show you that during the early days of America, not only the Old North Church in Boston was involved in the cause of Liberty, but so were the ministers throughout the colonies, who were more directly involved. Pastor Emerson was there, and Deacon Hosmer was hiding arms, and AHD his son right out in front. Those were the Good Old Days… The Red Coats, over-confident as agents of admiralty government, have a fatale tendency to be, sent in some men to the abandoned Concord and began to steal whatever they could find from the abandoned homes. Lucy Hosmer then gives us an insight into what happened that many of us had not known before, and a lesson that all of us can use today–

…Then they set the village Liberty Pole on fire just to mock us. That fire got out of control and spread to the roof of the Court House which surely would have been destroyed if it hadn’t been for old Martha Moulton, who keeps house for Dr. Minot. She saw the Court House beginning to burn and rushed up to some British Officers, who were standing nearly on the green, and implored them to put out the fire. At first they laughed at her and mocked her pleas. But, she kept on pleading loudly and gave them no peace until they put out the fire.

Here is the interesting part! The patriots over by the North Bridge could not see what was going on in town, but they did see the billowing smoke which continued as the Red Coats were giving the widow a hard time. Imagine, the only one who dared to confront the Red Coats was this frail old lady. That pattern is being seen again and again today in America. However, as recorded in Lucy’s journal, it was the smoke of the burning Liberty Pole and the Court House roof that actually triggered the minutemen into action.

Understand, the Red Coats were on the Concord side of the North Bridge, and to take Concord to save the town, it was necessary for the Minutemen to cross the bridge in the face of British fire. Since the immediate military mission was to save Concord, the honor of leading troops fell to the Concord Company. Instead, according to historical fact, the Concord Captain asked to be excused on the grounds that some of his men were not prepared, and others were afraid. Confusion and doubt were beginning to spread among the men. At that moment the steel voice of Captain Issac Davis came thundering over the confusion. It was the only direct statement by Davis that has been recorded in history, but it was the right on, at exactly the right moment in American history  — “I haven’t a man who is afraid to go!” he said.

He then marched the Acton Company to the head of the column of Minutemen. Lucy tells us what happened, next:

They marched in double file toward the North Bridge to the fife strains of “The White Cockade” with Captain Issac Davis’s company in front of the lines. As they advanced they could see three British companies crowding together at the far end of the bridge. Two or three of the Red Coats were observed trying to pull up the planks! But they soon gave up and ran back to their companions. Our men marched nearer and nearer to the bridge to the beat of Abner Hosmer’s drum. The British fired warning shots into the air. Our men were marching foreward. Suddenly, the Red Coats fired a volley and Abner Hosmer and his Captain, Issac Davis, fell dead… Joseph said that the battle of the North Bridge did not take more than two or three minutes, but I’ll wager that those brief moments will not be forgotten by any of our people.

This first organized attack against the Red Coats, and King George’s admiralty regulations was led by an Acton, Massachusetts man whose name, Issac Davis, is all but forgotten today.

One history book carries this account of those fateful few minutes of history that began the cause of American Liberty:

“As they marched toward the Red Coats, the shrill and stirring music of Luther Blanchard’s fife pierced the morning air. Weapons were loaded and primed. Hammers were cocked as they got into range of the British rifles. Bang! A puff of smoke appeared followed closely by the report of a British rifle. Two more followed in quick succession. Fifer Blanchard was hit and the fife was heard no more. A strange silence hung about three feet off the ground for about thirty seconds, and then came the first volley from the British. Captain Issac Davis and the drummer Abner Hosmer, were killed instantly. The war, hardly begun, was over for them.”

For a few moments, the death of Captain Davis and drummer Hosmer stunned the Acton Company. This was now the real thing! Over it all came the thundering voice of Major Buttrick, the Commanding Officer of the Concord Company, “Fire, fellow soldiers, for God’s sake, Fire!”

So, fire they did. The battle near Concord’s North Bridge was the one which set the stage for the greatest land of Liberty mankind has ever known. The battle began when King George’s forces attempted to disarm the American colonists.

---

* Text from Lucy Hosmer’s diary has been provided through the courtesy of Mary Hosmer Lupton of the Albemarle Chapter, Daughters of the American Revolution, Charlottesville, Virginia.

An Economic Solution

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 17. 2010

To return to a sound economic base, primarily a free market economy, a series of steps must be taken to achieve an understanding of where “existing” money is, and how it will be accounted in the conversion to the plan proposed herein.

To initiate the plan, fractional reserve banking must cease. Usury laws shall be enacted limiting interest to 3% per annum. All outstanding obligations to any financial institution will be held in abeyance, with no accruing interest, until the redemption process (2 years) has been completed.

The plan calls for the replacement of currency in two general areas, internal money and external money. Internal being that held by citizens of the United States or corporations operating solely within the United States. External being money held by any person not a citizen of the United States and any corporation operating internationally.

The sources of obligations are of three natures. First is the money circulating within the United States, currently, which will be identified as “A”. Next will be money circulating in the international realm based upon trade or other money legitimately held. This will be referred to as “B”. Finally, there is a lot of money which is circulating internally and internationally which was acquired by means considered illegal, such as the millions of dollars stacked in closets in Mexico, which will be identified as “C”.

The money of the “A” type will be redeemed as follows All coins and currency in circulation or on deposit , of an internal nature, will be identified based upon criteria to be developed, though will not include banking reserves, or any dollars not based upon real assets.

Replacement of value for internal money will be replaced . first, with US Greenback dollars, based on the full faith and credit of the United States. All redemption will require a physical return of Federal Reserve Notes in exchange for US Greenback dollars. This will become the interim money for internal use only, until the final resolution to specie based dollars.

Redemption will be conducted over a period of one year, with an additional years in which to hear appeals to decisions regarding whether the dollars are redeemable, or not, and any other petitions for consideration of redemption, all of which can only be presented by citizens of the United States.

For the sake of discussion, we will assume that the recognized type “A” money, Greenback Dollars ($), issued over this period amounts to $4 trillion.

The gold and silver on deposit at Fort Knox is to be audited and the actual dollar value determined based upon the original value of $20 per ounce of gold and $1 per ounce of silver. This will include only the assets of the United States held at Fort Knox. We will assume, then, that the value determined by this audit comes to $80 billion.

Gold and Silver Certificates will be issued based upon the value determined by the audit. The certificates are not redeemable for gold or silver, but are value based upon the deposit at Fort Knox, which will be audited every five years to assure that the sound backing of the United States Dollar (designated by $ ) continues, and that the internal money supply is limited, and cannot be expanded by other than additional gold or silver deposits made to the Depository.

Gold and silver may circulate as specie, though the United States government will not mint, guarantee, or participate in circulation thereof. Any specie made in payment to, or bought by, the United States government will be deposited in the Depository and Certificates ($) issued into circulation.

The existing United States Greenback Dollars ($) will be redeemed for the new United States Dollars ($) based upon the ratio of recognized type “A” money ($4,000,000,000,000.00) to the United States Dollar ($80,000,000,000.00), [ $/$ = 50 ], the Greenback dollars will be redeemed at the rate of $50 for one United States Dollar ($1). This would require an adjustment of the value of goods to 1/50th of their current value. For example, if something now costs $5, the new price would be $0.10 (10¢).

The new United States Dollars would only circulate within the United States. If returned from outside of the United States, they will be redeemed for United States Trade Credits (see below), at the value at the time of redemption.

Type “B” money and any type “A” money not redeemed as aforesaid shall be redeemed by redeeming all such outstanding obligations for United States Trade Credits. A determination will be made of each application to determine the rate of redemption. For Treasury Bills (full faith and credit of the United States), redemption should be at face value. For Federal Reserve Notes and other obligations based upon Federal Reserve Notes, redemption should be based upon the ratios determined for type “A” greenback to United States Dollars.

United States Trade Credits, while determined in dollars ($), will not be on par with the United States Dollar ($). Trade Credits will be used only for international commerce, and will not be circulated within the United States. They will be converted to United States Dollars upon entry into the country, based upon the aforesaid ratio, and United States Dollars will be converted to Trade Credits (even for citizens of the United States going abroad) upon leaving the country. United States Dollars returned to the United States will be penalized and redeemed at 50% of value.

Adjustments may be made to the Dollar to Trade Credit ratio, from time to time, to assure that a beneficial to the United Sates value is attached thereto.

Outstanding obligations in Trade Credits (existing outstanding obligations) will be assured, though no timely redemption is implied.

Balance of trade, in the international market, must be pursued to extinguish the outstanding debt in Trade Credits.

Type “C” money along with any type “A”: or type “B” money not redeemed timely, or determined to be ill-gotten, will not be redeemed, and will not become an obligation on the United States. This does not preclude actions against the Federal Reserve Board, which will, upon initiation of this plan, no longer have standing within the United States.

 

Some Thoughts on Public Education

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 29, 2010

Introduction

Public Education in America has a long history.  In the Cape Code area, a public school was established in the early seventeen hundreds.  The pay for the schoolmaster was in the form of part of the catch of fish.  Public Education was not established by government, rather, by the parents and members of the community.

Today, we have a “public education system” that has deviated from that original intent to such a point that, except for the name, they bear little resemblance to each other.

The current form has become an administrative nightmare; a means of social reform (indoctrination); and, fails, miserably, to achieve its intended purpose as a mechanism for the diffusion of knowledge, focusing instead, on an institutional evaluation of the failure of that system.

So, let’s look at what public education was, from Jefferson through the end of the 19th century.

Historical perspective

Thomas Jefferson, the principle advocate of public education, is probably the finest source of the intent of that system.  Below are a number of historical quotes by Jefferson regarding the subject:

“I have indeed two great measures at heart, without which no republic can maintain itself in strength: 1. That of general education, to enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom.  2. To divide every county into hundreds, of such size that all the children of each will be within reach of a central school in it.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1810.

“Education not being a branch of municipal government, but, like the other arts and sciences, an accident [i.e., attribute] only, I did not place it with election as a fundamental member in the structure of government.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.

“The present consideration of a national establishment for education, particularly, is rendered proper by this circumstance also, that if Congress, approving the proposition, shall yet think it more eligible to found it on a donation of lands [this applied beginning with the lands acquired under the Treaty of Paris — Ohio Territory], they have it now in their power to endow it with those which will be among the earliest to produce the necessary income.  The foundation would have the advantage of being independent on war, which may suspend other improvements by requiring for its own purposes the resources destined for them.” –Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806.

“A bill for the more general diffusion of learning… proposed to divide every county into wards of five or six miles square;… to establish in each ward a free school for reading, writing and common arithmetic; to provide for the annual selection of the best subjects from these schools, who might receive at the public expense a higher degree of education at a district school; and from these district schools to select a certain number of the most promising subjects, to be completed at an University where all the useful sciences should be taught. Worth and genius would thus have been sought out from every condition of life, and completely prepared by education for defeating the competition of wealth and birth for public trusts.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813.

“The less wealthy people… by the bill for a general education, would be qualified to understand their rights, to maintain them, and to exercise with intelligence their parts in self-government; and all this would be effected without the violation of a single natural right of any one individual citizen.” –Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.

“The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes.” –Thomas Jefferson: Diffusion of Knowledge Bill, 1779.

“It is an axiom in my mind that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves, and that, too, of the people with a certain degree of instruction.  This is the business of the state to effect, and on a general plan.” –Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1786.

Nearly a century later, we can observe the view and understanding of the public school system from, “Elements of Civil Government, A text-book for use in public schools High schools and normal schools and a manual of reference for teachers, by Alex. L. Peterman, 1891″. From that book:

CHAPTER II. — THE SCHOOL.

Introductory. — When children reach the age of six or seven years, they enter the public school and become subject to its rules.  We are born under government, and we are educated under it.  We are under it at home, in school, and in after life.  Law and order are everywhere necessary to the peace, safety, liberty, and happiness of the people.  True liberty and true enlightenment can not exist unless regulated by law.

Definition and Purposes. — A school district or sub-district is a certain portion of the town or county laid off and set apart for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a public school.  It exists for educational reasons only, and is the unit of educational work.  The public schools are supported by funds raised partly by the State, and partly by the county or the township.  They are frequently called common schools or free schools.  It is the duty of the State to provide all children with the means of acquiring a plain English education, and the State discharges this duty by dividing the county into districts of such size that a school-house and a public school are within reach of every child.

Formation. — The limits of the school district are usually fixed by the chief school officer of the county, by the town, by the school board, or by the people living in the neighborhood…

Functions. — The functions, or work, of the school are solely educational.  The State supports a system of public schools in order that the masses of the people may be educated.  The country needs good citizens: to be good citizens the people must be intelligent, and to be intelligent they must attend school.

MEMBERS.

The members of the school district are the people living in it.  All are interested, one way or another, in the success of the school.  In most States the legal voters elect the school board, or trustees, and in some States levy the district school taxes.  Those who are neither voters nor within the school age are interested in the intelligence and good name of the community, and are therefore interested in the public school.

Children. — The children within the school age are the members of the school, and they are the most important members of the school district.  It is for their good that the school exists.  The State has provided schools in order that its children may be educated, and thus become useful men and women and good citizens.

***

Parents, their Rights and Duties. — All parents have the right to send their children to the public school, and it is also their duty to patronize the public school, or some other equally as good.  Fathers and mothers who deprive their children of the opportunities of acquiring an education do them lasting injury.  Parents should use every effort to give their children at least the best education that can be obtained in the public schools.

GOVERNMENT.

The school has rules to govern it, that the pupil may be guided, directed, and protected in the pursuit of knowledge.  Schools can not work without order, and there can be no order without government.  The members of the school desire that good order be maintained, for they know their success depends upon it; so that school government, like all other good government, exists by the consent and for the good of the governed.

***

Duties. — In most States it is the duty of the district officers to raise money by levying taxes for the erection of school-buildings, and to superintend their construction; to purchase furniture and apparatus us; to care for the school property; to employ teachers and fix their salaries; to visit the school and direct its work; to take the school census; and to make reports to the higher school officers.

***

Powers. — The teacher has the same power and right to govern the school that the parent has to govern the family.  The law puts the teacher in the parent’s place and expects him to perform the parent’s office, subject to the action of the directors or trustees.  It clothes him with all power necessary to govern the school, and then holds him responsible for its conduct, the directors having the right to dismiss him at any time for a failure to perform his duty.

***

CHAPTER III. — THE CIVIL DISTRICT.

Introductory –In our study, thus far, we have had to do with special forms of government as exercised in the family and in the school.  These are, in a sense, peculiar to themselves.  The rights of government as administered in the family, and the rights of the members of a family, as well as their duties to each other, are natural rights and duties; they do not depend upon society for their force.  In fact, they are stronger and more binding in proportion as the bands of society are relaxed.

In the primitive state, before there was organized civil society, family government was supreme; and, likewise, if a family should remove from within the limits of civil society and be entirely isolated, family government would again resume its power and binding force.

School government, while partaking of the nature of civil government, is still more closely allied to family government.  In the natural state, and in the isolated household, the education of the child devolves upon the parents, and the parent delegates a part of his natural rights and duties to the teacher when he commits the education of his child to the common school.  The teacher is said to stand in loco parentis (in the place of the parent), and from this direction, mainly, are his rights of government derived.

The school, therefore, stands in an intermediate position between family government and civil government proper, partaking of some features of each, and forming a sort of stepping-stone for the child from the natural restraints of home to the more complex demands of civil society.  The school district, also, while partaking of the nature of a civil institution, is in many respects to be regarded as a co-operative organization of the families of the neighborhood for the education of their children, and its government as a co-operative family government.

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

Public, a. [L.publicus, from the root of populus, people; that is, people-like.]

1. Pertaining to a nation, state or community; extending to a whole people; as a public law, which binds the people of a nation or state, as opposed to a private statute or resolve, which respects an individual or a corporation only.  Thus we say, public welfare, public good, public calamity, public service, public property.

Education, n.

The bringing up, as of a child, instruction; formation of manners.  Education comprehends all that series of instruction and discipline which is intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, and form the manners and habits of youth, and fit them for usefulness in their future stations.  To give children a good education in manners, arts and science, is important; and an immense responsibility rests on parents and guardians who neglect these duties.

Knowledge, n.

1. A clear and certain perception of that which exists, or of truth and fact; the perception of the connection and agreement, or disagreement and repugnancy of our ideas.  Human knowledge is very limited, and is mostly gained by observation and experience.
2. Learning; illumination of mind.

Public Schools

Jefferson realized that knowledge was essential, in the people, if the government was to be of service to those people, when he said, “The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes.” He also provided that such knowledge would “enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom.”

It is clear that education was not a service to or by the government, only to be encouraged and provided for by the government, when he suggested that parents could utilize the public or private schools, though the minimum education would be that afforded by the public school.

He further suggests the limitation of federal government involvement in education by allowing that they only provide “donations of land” which would “endow” the schools to “produce the necessary income”.  Though he suggested the division of land into districts, he never suggested that the government was a player in that education, rather, that it would educate all, thereby “defeating the competition of wealth and birth for public trusts“.  How could you entrust those of birth and wealth with controlling education if the purpose was to defeat their control of that education?

The ultimate purpose of the public education was to assure that the less wealthy people “would be qualified to understand their rights, to maintain them, and to exercise with intelligence their parts in self-government,” warning, also, that ” our present state of liberty [is] a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree.”

In establishing that the responsibility for providing the public education is not a function of government, he says, “Education not being a branch of municipal government, but, like the other arts and sciences, an accident [i.e., attribute] only, I did not place it with election as a fundamental member in the structure of government.”

Now, it is possible that what Jefferson has told us could be considered as conjecture, not of practice.  This would suggest that he was in error and the government must take a greater role in the education of our children.  If that were the case, surely, practice would have changed shortly after Jefferson left the scene and would have removed itself from that “public” sphere and into the realm of government control by the end of that century.  So, let us look at public education as it was described and practiced in 1891:

From “Elements of Civil Government”, we find government is a rather broad term.  It applies “in home, in school, and in after [later] life.”  That “[i]t is the duty of the State to provide all children the means of acquiring” an education“.  So, here we come to a crux in the difference between public education and what we have, today.  The means of an education versus the education, itself.  Providing you the means of fishing does not provide you the fish — only the means to acquire the fish.  Education is, likewise, from the standpoint of government, only the means, not the education.

“The members of the school district are the people living in it.  All are interested, one way or another, in the success of the school.”  This would exclude people not living in the district, say, in the State capital, or, Washington, D.C.  What conceivable interest could politicians totally unrelated, and, probably, unaware of the nature of the district, should be interested in the outcome of the education?  Surely, if they were other than simply pretending to be interested, we could expect that any true interest would be divisive, and, perhaps as was suggested by Jefferson, a result of their “ambition under all of its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers and defeat its purpose”.  After all, if the truth is what is legislated, there is no role for the people to judge what the government is doing.  It is, for all intents and purposes, a “perversion of power into tyranny“.

Looking at the relationship of the teacher to the student, we find that “The teacher has the same power and right to govern the school that the parent has to govern the family.  The law puts the teacher in the parent’s place and expects him to perform the parent’s office.”  This is further supported by the fact that when we look at the Civil District (city or county), we find that there are “special forms of government as exercised by the family and the school” that are “peculiar to themselves“.

To assure a proper understanding of the relationships stated above, let me repeat from that source that:

“School government, while partaking of the nature of civil government, is still more closely allied to family government.  In the natural state, and in the isolated household, the education of the child devolves upon the parents, and the parent delegates a part of his natural rights and duties to the teacher when he commits the education of his child to the common school.  The teacher is said to stand in loco parentis (in the place of the parent), and from this direction, mainly, are his rights of government derived.

“The school, therefore, stands in an intermediate position between family government and civil government proper, partaking of some features of each, and forming a sort of stepping-stone for the child from the natural restraints of home to the more complex demands of civil society.  The school district, also, while partaking of the nature of a civil institution, is in many respects to be regarded as a co-operative organization of the families of the neighborhood for the education of their children, and its government as a co-operative family government.

So, when you send your child to school, you have made the teacher in loco parentis.  If you have not assigned that right to the federal government, the state government, or even the school district, then, should that authority apply only to those to whom you have granted, should it extended to people unknown, in places unknown, for purposes unknown?

Government Schools

The United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare (Welfare has since been changed to “human services”) was formed in 1953.  Given that the Founders and Framers only saw fit to provide grants of land, at the federal level, for the support of the public education system, we must wonder why this expansive move into the rights previously held by the parents.  However, these intervening 57 years have clearly established the consequences of the establishment of that Department.  It has resulted in a near complete takeover of the education process and moved it into absolute (despotic?) control of the federal government, including denial of the parent’s right to involve themselves in the education process.

Along with the expansion of federal authority in the realm that was previously reserved to the community, the State governments have also encroached well beyond their original enrolment in education.  BY submitting to federal dictates, mandates and funds allocation, they have become co-conspirators with the federal government to undermine the purpose of public education, as envisioned by the Founders and practiced, for over a century, as a right of the local community and the parents, resulting in the subjugation of our children to an indoctrination program the prescribes social relationship, undermines religious and moral values, and, subjects the children to a belief in the absolutism of government’s authority.

Conclusion

The Constitution stands mute on the subject of education and schools.  The only authority that the federal government had was with regard to the “public lands”.  That authority underlay Jefferson’s desire to found the federal support only to the “donation of lands”.  Clearly, no authority was granted by the Constitution to subvert the rights of the parents and the school district in matters of education.  Even an expansive misrepresentation of “the General Welfare” could not subordinate the authority of the parents and the school district, even if they were failing, miserable, in the pursuit of a proper education.  After all, who but the parents could determine whether there was a failure in the process? 

That ascension of authority to the federal government made way for the ascension of State authority, well beyond that which was intended.  Initially, states could set certain guidelines, and, historically, these were quite limited and included the matter of taxation for funding, usually granted to the county or district, and protections to be afforded the district and schools for protection from abuse.

Taxes for the support of public schools were, for many decades, raised through ad valorem (on property) taxes.  This did provide for inequality in education, however, this inequality was no different from the inequality in housing and diet.  Those who worked harder received greater benefit.

This did not demean education.  The basics of reading, writing, mathematics, and science were necessary as a foundation for subsequent learning, whether through the educational system or the ability to acquire additional knowledge by reading books, periodicals, and newspapers.  It was the foundation that was the necessity of public education.  Those who proved themselves worthy were able to take advantage of scholarships to increase their education, though that route was, and should only be, available to those competent, desirous of, and willing to pursue such higher education.  It was, and should be, the foundational education that came within the purview of “public” education.

The consequence of attempting to assure that all people had such higher education available was that the higher education has been lowered in quality to accommodate those who were not mentally capable of such aspirations, though they had been convinced that it was their “right” to achieve what would otherwise be beyond their abilities.  This has resulted in college graduates with 6th grade reading skills, and, and overall reduction of the equality of education of the higher levels, except where wealth has afforded certain individuals with access to expensive private colleges.  The entire country has suffered as a result of this malaise in education by allowing those to have degrees that are not indicative of their scholarly achievements, rather, the fact that they have completed a course of education without regard to the quality thereof.

Public education, to serve the intentions and practices under which it was first instituted, must return to that which serves the people rather than the government.  To allow the government to impose any more than the “means” to educate; to allow the government to subvert the needs of the people, as defined by the people through their school boards of local, interested parties; is to allow the government the means of indoctrination of the people, especially the young, into acceptance of despotism and subjugation.

The following is a much abbreviated version of “The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government“. The entire Plan consumes many pages of detail regarding the Plan as well as hundreds of pages of reference materials.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government

Abbreviated Version
(includes only a few portions of the overall plan)

Preface

This Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government, as explained in “The Question”, is purely hypothetical.  It is, however, a natural evolution from the “You Have Tread On Me – Petition“, as the Revolutionary War was a natural evolution from the Olive Branch Petition.

In adapting this sequence of events to modern times, it needs to be understood that times have changed and the possibility of a gathering of “revolutionary” delegates in one place would be fatal to the cause.

Understanding this difficulty, the expedient for today is that individuals would sign and submit, to their respective representatives in the federal government, individual petitions as “redress of grievances, as per Article I of the Bill of Rights.

Absent a positive response to the Petition, one could safely conclude that the government had no more intention of addressing the grievances than King George III did.  This, by colonial standards, would put one in a “state of nature” — absent an operating Constitutional government — wherein he, as a free man, has every right to associate with others of similar circumstance.

An earlier article, by the author of this Plan, provides some insight into this aspect of the Founders’ thinking process when they realized that they could no longer live under government that did not recognize their rights (see Sons of Liberty #14).

As you progress through this hypothetical Plan, you will not that there are short sketches (Historical Perspective) that provide a brief example of the historical conditions that can be equated with each part of the Plan.

The Plan, then, is an effort to parallel the activities of the Founders into a theoretical plan that emulates the progression of events, culminating in the creation of the United States of America.

The Plan is made as detailed as expedient for the variety of possible circumstance that might arise.  Plans, however, can never be made so rigid that they will work under all conditions.  Therefore, it is intended to provide sufficient detail so that creative minds could easily refine the Plan into a working model for immediate and local conditions.

Often, elements of the Plan call to mind other works by this author, and, works by others, in which cases, links are provided to those works to provide additional insight which might assist in more detailed planning.

The Plan is provided for your pleasure and education.  What you do with it is up to you, and, what you do not do with it is a point of consideration for your posterity.

G. H.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Question:

A question was raised, a few months ago, in a conversation with a friend.  The question was, “Could a Revolution be conducted in the modern world considering modern technology, extensive government troops, and battle field weapons?”  At first thought, the task seems so ominous, so daunting and against such odds, that it would be impractical, if not impossible.

Upon reflecting on what must have been equally daunting to the Founding Fathers, it is not, as first anticipated, such an ominous task.

The Founding Fathers faced British forces — the best-trained and most successful military in the then world.  Its navy was master of the seas; its land forces had recently defeated the French and had forced colonization around the world.  It controlled the local government, and had enacted laws that gave it nearly arbitrary control over the colonies.

The colonies had few things working for them.  They had a lack of experience, except those who had recently fought alongside the British in the French-Indian Wars; some had learned to defend themselves against hostile Indians, and thus learned fighting tactics used by the Indians.  They had local knowledge of the topography.  And, they had the fortitude and persistence that had helped their forefathers, and themselves, overcome the obstacles of taming a land that had been little changed from its natural state.

Against them were: Substantial numbers of highly trained soldiers; Unlimited supplies and resources, although most of them were located across the ocean and had to be transported, this taking months; A multitude of locations, bases, within and around the colonies; Mastery of the waterways; And, many of the military leaders had experience both with fighting Indians and working alongside the colonists.

In those first eventful days of April, May, and June 1775, the colonists learned what their weaknesses were and what some of their strengths were.  They learned that they were not trained, nor were they inclined to fight face-to-face on the battlefield.  They learned that the tactics of the Indians, ambush by surprise and hit and run tactics would damage both morale and manpower of the British.  They learned that living to fight another day was more important than victory in a battle; that skirmishes were the best tactic, unless a major battle had a high degree of probability of being won..  One of the major drawbacks in their efforts was that of selecting officers who were astute enough to challenge the ways of traditional warfare.

But, they did, with their persistence and their faith in God, prevail — not by might, rather by tactics and fortitude.

Just how would they fight, today?  Surely, they would adapt their tactics to the ‘battlefield’ and would realize the political necessity of securing faith and assistance from the non-combatants.  There are many other generalities that can be addressed, but of greater importance will be the actual circumstances of today’s world and the necessity to develop new tactics in order to overcome obstacles that present themselves, as the battle begins.  This is a theoretical answer to that question.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Some Thoughts

This plan, after years of discussion and contemplation, coupled with an understanding of what the Founders did to challenge the authority of the power of government, was developed as a guideline that would answer the question of whether it would be possible, today, to emulate the actions of those Founders to achieve the same end.

The desire to change government back to its Constitutional limitations would best be served if no blood were shed.  The impracticality of achieving that end, along with the knowledge that blood has already been shed, moves us to the second position — that the minimum amount of blood be shed, and, that of if blood is to be shed, that it include an absolute minimum of innocent blood.

There is little doubt that during a conflict, blood will be shed, when necessary, in the course of that conflict.  Knowing that any innocent blood shed is a detriment to the image of those who seek to return to Constitutional government, every effort should be made to “pick the ground” for open conflict, with special consideration to locations that will have the least impact on innocent bystanders.

In the selection of ‘targets’, outside of the normal area of conflict (aggravation), the following should be taken into consideration.

Though accident, error, and, perhaps, judging wrongly, the actions of those who might be targeted, it is far better to isolate those errors to people who, if not guilty, at least are in a position and have acted in such a manner that their guilt is probable.

There is also the moral consideration — that those who are willing to strike, as the Founders did, do so in violation of the laws, as they exist, today.  When they make a decision to “target” someone, or, something, they should consider just how the “target” would be construed by those who will, eventually, make judgment on their actions.  The most important consideration, however, would be the judgment made by God and the person doing the act.  If that act is motivated for purposes of revenge, God will judge, and, the person will have to live with, the consequences.

On the other hand, if the act is one that is surely one of retribution for acts of the target, whether corporate property or an individual life, and has clearly demonstrated by a pattern on the part of the person or entity, then, surely, God will judge as necessary, and, the actor will have a clear mind.

Where possible, all players in the act, and, even more desirable, others who can safely be associated with and brought into, if not the plan, at least the determination of the validity of the ‘target’, the collective judgment, serving as a sort of jury, considering both the guilt and the demonstrable necessity of the action, will provide the best assurance of a desirable final judgment, and a clear conscience for those involved.

If blood is to be shed, every consideration should be made that the blood deserves to be shed.

Some considerations for the evaluation of a ‘target’:

• Have lives been lost as direct, or indirect, result of the actions of the ‘target’, acting in violation of the Constitution or constitutional laws of the land?
• Has there been a continual loss of property by people who should have had that property protected, under the Constitution or constitutional laws?
• If a foreign nation, say, Russia, were to invade the United States, would the target become a collaborator, turning against the United States and the Constitution?

Note: The possibility that if there were sufficient ‘friends” (collaborators) of a foreign power, these ‘friends’ who might encourage participation by that foreign power, is to be considered.  The discouragement of his sort of person (potential collaborators) would be as desirable as the discouragement of all other potential ‘targets’.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

The remainder of the Plan can be found at The Plan for Restoration of Constitutional Government

Or an audio version at Discourse on “The Plan for Restoration of Constitutional Government”

 

Some Thoughts on Taxation

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 24, 2010

 Introduction

Taxation is often considered one of the most burdensome and oppressive duties of government.  “There are only two things certain; Death and Taxes”, quite adequately describes the effect of taxes upon our daily lives.

Though far from truth, schoolbooks have, for generations, proclaimed that “No Taxation without Representation” was the cause of the Revolutionary War.  There is no doubt that the fact that the colonies had no representation in Parliament was one of many points of contention between colonies and Crown.  This very fact was the subject of many speeches, on both sides of the Atlantic.

It has been suggested, on the western side of the Atlantic, that if the colonies were allowed to raise their own taxes, based upon both their needs and requisitions from Parliament, this objection would have been overcome.  So, let’s keep that thought in mind as we look at our history with regard to the subject of taxation.

We need to understand that the Framers had to deal with the touchy subject of taxation based upon the role it played in leading up to separation from England as well as the brief history and problems posed between Independence and the Constitution.  The former has just been addressed, so we will look at the later.

Two situations provided the Framers some concern in dealing with the subject.  The first was that the requisitions imposed by the Continental Congress, both before and under the Articles of Confederation were ignored by a number of states, ultimately resulting in abandoning efforts to collect the requisitions and relieving those debts not paid.

The second situation was known as Shay’s Rebellion [1787].  Farmers in Western Massachusetts had been taxed by the State, the purpose being for the State to be able to pay its obligations to the Congress, as well as have operating funds for the function of the Massachusetts government.  This was compounded by the absence of specie (gold or silver) through the colonies.  Repayment of debt on foreign loans required specie.

Now, to source documents:

Constitution

Article I, Section 2, clause 3:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons…

Article I, Section 7, clause 1:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Article I, Section 8, clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Article I, Section 9, clause 1:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Article I, Section 9, clauses 4 & 5:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

Article I, Section 10, clauses 1 thru 3:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Amendment 16 [1913]:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Amendment [XVII] [1913]

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.  The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

Amendment 19 [1964]:

Section 1–The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers are accepted as an indication of the intent to the Framers, and, of those who ratified that Constitution.

Federalist Papers #12, Alexander Hamilton:

The prosperity of commerce is now perceived and acknowledged by all enlightened statesmen to be the most useful as well as the most productive source of national wealth, and has accordingly become a primary object of their political cares….  It has been found in various countries that, in proportion as commerce has flourished, land has risen in value.

***

The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates.  Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury.

***

But it is not in this aspect of the subject alone that Union will be seen to conduce to the purpose of revenue.  There are other points of view, in which its influence will appear more immediate and decisive.  It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation.  Tax laws have in vain been multiplied; new methods to enforce the collection have in vain been tried; the public expectation has been uniformly disappointed, and the treasuries of the States have remained empty.

***

No person acquainted with what happens in other countries will be surprised at this circumstance.  In so opulent a nation as that of Britain, where direct taxes from superior wealth must be much more tolerable, and, from the vigor of the government, much more practicable, than in America, far the greatest part of the national revenue is derived from taxes of the indirect kind, from imposts, and from excises.  Duties on imported articles form a large branch of this latter description.

***

Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events.  In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land.

Federalist Papers #30, Alexander Hamilton:

Let us attend to what would be the effects of this situation in the very first war in which we should happen to be engaged.  We will presume, for argument’s sake, that the revenue arising from the impost duties answers the purposes of a provision for the public debt and of a peace establishment for the Union.  Thus circumstanced, a war breaks out.  What would be the probable conduct of the government in such an emergency?  Taught by experience that proper dependence could not be placed on the success of requisitions, unable by its own authority to lay hold of fresh resources, and urged by considerations of national danger, would it not be driven to the expedient of diverting the funds already appropriated from their proper objects to the defence of the State?  It is not easy to see how a step of this kind could be avoided; and if it should be taken, it is evident that it would prove the destruction of public credit at the very moment that it was becoming essential to the public safety.

Federalist Papers #45, James Madison:

If the federal government is to have collectors of revenue, the State governments will have theirs also.  And as those of the former will be principally on the sea-coast, and not very numerous, whilst those of the latter will be spread over the face of the country, and will be very numerous, the advantage in this view also lies on the same side.  It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; then an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States.

***

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.  The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.  The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs; concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Constitutional Intent

“Representation and Direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States” provides an insight into one of the methods of funding for the federal government.  Representation was to be based upon population, and, the funds needed in excess of those derived by other means were to be supplemented proportioned on the strength of voting power of each state in the House of Representatives.

Let’s look at the relationship between taxation, spending, and representation.  First, we have “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives“, giving that representative body the exclusive power to raise taxes, though concurrence by the Senate and the President were still required.

Now, let’s look at the Senate.  Senators were appointed by the State legislatures, prior to the adoption of the 17th Amendment, and, consequently, would look out for the interest of the State, while the representatives would look out for the interests of the people who comprised their constituency.  So, we have both the people and the state with representation to look out for their respective interests.

If the Representatives felt a need for raising revenue, the would “originate” a bill to that effect.  The Senate, if the burden were put upon the states to raise the revenue, might be concerned and refuse to approve the bill, saving the respective legislatures from having to raise taxes to raise revenues to meet the needs of the federal government.

In a sense, we would have three, independent bodies exerting caution over any increase in revenue; the House of Representatives ; the Senate; and, the respective state legislatures, which would have the responsibility of raising additional revenue, as well as the ire of the people in so doing. 

If we delve a bit deeper into this concept, we can see that there is a consistency with the feelings of the Founders when they coined the phrase, “No Taxation without Representation“.  If we equate the Parliament with the Congress, and, the state legislatures with the colonial assemblies, we can see a parallel, which would require the state legislature (colonial assembly) to enact revenue laws based upon requisitions by the Congress (Parliament).  Clearly, this concept has strong support from our history books.

To address the Founders concerns, perhaps it would be appropriate to have representatives in the Congress to enact and approve revenue bills, and then, requisition to the states; the state legislature to raise the revenues so required.

Also, the intent of the involvement of the states in collecting the revenue was made clear by James Madison (FP #45), when he said, “It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; then an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own.” 

We need not wonder why this method, of the state paying quotas, was not primary.  The experience of the recent past had proven, under the Articles of Confederation, that collection would be, at best, difficult.  There had been no experience under the Constitution and strengthened federal government to dispel such concern.  Recent history, however, has demonstrated that the federal government is quite able to enforce compliance, which makes moot this concern.

Madison also points out, in the same number, that the primary need for additional revenue would be consistent with, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government [which] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.”

Subsequently, in 1913, this whole concept of taxation was turned on end.  With the enactment of the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution (coincidently, the same year that the Federal Reserve Act and currency contrary to the Constitution) were ratified, changing our whole economic structure by rendering gold and silver equal to, or subordinate to, promissory notes (Federal Reserve Notes).  Money was relegated to a system without value.

Clearly, the type of expenditures we have today were not within the scope imagined by Madison.  Quite possibly, if the tax structure was maintained along the original concepts, we would not have the enormous debt to repay.

Continuing on with the subject, let’s see what Alexander Hamilton thought should be the primary source of revenue. 

In Federalist Papers # 12, he said, “The prosperity of commerce is now perceived and acknowledged by all enlightened statesmen to be the most useful as well as the most productive source of national wealth, and has accordingly become a primary object of their political cares…” 

He continues, “The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates.  Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury.”

He then advises that, “[i]t is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation…”

In support of the use of commerce as the primary source of revenue, he says, “No person acquainted with what happens in other countries will be surprised at this circumstance.  In so opulent a nation as that of Britain, where direct taxes from superior wealth must be much more tolerable, and, from the vigor of the government, much more practicable, than in America, for the greatest part of the national revenue is derived from taxes of the indirect kind, from imposts, and from excises.  Duties on imported articles form a large branch of this latter description.”  Included in this is a comparison to England, where the rich are well defined, and a source of revenue.  Something that might be worthy of consideration.

Finally, in this number, he concludes with the significance of the burden on other sources than revenue, when he says, “Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events.  In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land.”

To demonstrate the nature of change in how government operates, we can look at the concerns that Mr. Hamilton placed upon the ability of the country to borrow money, should the need arise, in Federalist Papers #30:

Let us attend to what would be the effects of this situation in the very first war in which we should happen to be engaged.  We will presume, for argument’s sake, that the revenue arising from the impost duties answers the purposes of a provision for the public debt and of a peace establishment for the Union.  Thus circumstanced, a war breaks out.  What would be the probable conduct of the government in such an emergency?  Taught by experience that proper dependence could not be placed on the success of requisitions, unable by its own authority to lay hold of fresh resources, and urged by considerations of national danger, would it not be driven to the expedient of diverting the funds already appropriated from their proper objects to the defence of the State?  It is not easy to see how a step of this kind could be avoided; and if it should be taken, it is evident that it would prove the destruction of public credit at the very moment that it was becoming essential to the public safety.

Clearly, times have changed.  The ability of the government to borrow money on the “public credit” is, without question, indisputable.  So, many of the concerns of the Framers have fallen by the wayside.  Perhaps legitimate under the then circumstances, times, and the new federal government under the Constitution, have changed.  Perhaps, now, it is time to reevaluate the method of federal taxation to be consistent with what was expressed, then, though not put into service because of those concerns.

Some Definitions

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

Apportion, v. t.
To divide and assign in just proportion; to distribute among two or more, a just part or share to each; as, to apportion undivided rights; to apportion time among various employments.

Duty, n.
Tax, toll, impost, or customs; excise; any sum of money required by government to be paid on the importation, exportation, or consumption of goods.  An impost on land or other real estate, and on stock of farmers, is not called a duty, but a direct tax.

Impost, n.
1.  Any tax or tribute imposed by authority; particularly, a duty or tax laid by governments on goods imported, and paid or secured by the importer at the time of importation.

Excise, n.
An inland duty or impost, laid on commodities consumed, or on the retail, which is the last stage before consumption; as an excise on coffee, soap, candles, which a person consumes in his family.  But many articles are excised at the manufactories, as spirit at the distillery, printed silks and linens at the printers, &c.

Capitation, n.
1.  Numeration by the head; a numbering of persons.
2.  The tax, or imposition upon each head or persons; a poll tax.

Income, n.
That gain which proceeds from labor, business or property of any kind; the produce of a farm; the rent of houses; the proceeds of professional business; the profits of commerce or of occupation; the interest of money or stock in funds.

Tarif, n.
1.  Properly, a list or table of goods with the duties or customs to be paid for the same, either on importation or exportation, whether such duties are imposed by the government of a country, or agreed on by the princes or governments of two countries holding commerce with each other.
2.  A list or table of duties or customs to be paid on goods imported or exported.

Considerations

There can be little doubt that the structure of government and apportionment had a purpose, in the minds of the Framers.  At the time of the Federal Reserve Act, 16th and 17th Amendments [1913], the national debt had remained relatively level with that of just after the Civil War, about 2.5 billion dollars.  Within just a few years, it has gone from that stable 2.5 billion to nearly 5,000 times that amount in 2010.  Can there be any question as to the ability of the government to borrow money.  The problem remains, however, that as we continue to borrow, can that debt be repaid.  Taxation has become a means to pay the interest, though it is not sufficient to retire the debt.

By having direct taxes, without apportionment, easily imposed upon us, we have implemented a direct line from our wallets to the government.  Considering that all direct taxes were intended to be apportioned, we can look at the Sixteenth Amendment to see what it really says.  Remember, the Constitution required apportionment, and, it anticipated that direct taxes would be on land, not on the earnings of a workingman.  The Amendment reads:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Rather than going in to the legal ramifications of the Amendment, which has yet to be resolved by the courts, we can wonder what “gain” (definition of income) meant, then, as well as, if it was a direct tax upon something not previously granted, why it had to include the exclusion of apportionment.

If our debt had not grown since the civil war, and there was no need for additional revenue, why would Congress propose, and the states ratify, an amendment that created a completely new method of taxation.  After all, they had not exercised all of those taxes anticipated by the Framers, though in the slow evolution of the “income tax” to what it has become, invading our private records for information; multitudes of new officers to seize our property.  After all, from an historical perspective, we can look to the Declaration of Independence to see that such a means as was to be used to collect this new tax was well defined in the objections to the British Rule that resulted in our independency.  From the enumerated complaints in the Declaration, “He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance”.  What conceivable method of taxation could require more new offices and officers to harass our people and eat out their substance?

Now, with this in mind, what impelled Congress to establish the most burdensome and intrusive means of tax collection possible?  Duties are based upon tariffs, and easily collected at ports of entry.  Excise taxes are collected by those licensed for the particular activity upon which the tax applies.  Finally, land, which doesn’t move, is already assessed as to value, and has collection methods in place.  Instead, the Congress established a new form of taxation, never before conceived as to being practical, and at present, requiring review and collecting from over two hundred million people, along with the forces necessary to review, audit and collect those taxes.  To add to the idiocy of that system, how many of the people’s own hours of life are committed, each year, to the production of the necessary records to satisfy those tens of thousands of agents, taking that time away from them, their families, their leisure, and their productive pursuits?

We need to consider, too, a couple more events in our history that reflect on taxation.  First was the excise tax on WHISKEY, resulting in the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791.  The country needed money.  They imposed a tax on the production of whiskey.  Whiskey was a product of surplus grain. Since the producers of whiskey in Pennsylvania had very little in the way of circulating money, they were unable to pay the taxes.  So, they would either have to stop producing, which meant that they could not barter with the whiskey, or they would have to find some “hard currency” to pay the taxes.  They were put down by force, and all we have to gain from this event is the experience of the effect of misplaced excise taxes.

The other situation lead to the bloodiest war in our history.  Contrary to popular belief, the slave issue was not the primary event leading to the Civil War.  Slavery did not become an issue until well into the war, though states had seceded from the Union even before Lincoln was inaugurated.

Congress, however, had enacted tariffs that were unequal, and detrimental to the South and its economy.  High important tariffs forced them to buy manufactured goods from the North, paying more than what overseas source would require for the same products.  It was based upon forms of taxes more than slavery that forced the disjointing of the Union.

Conclusion

Federal taxes must be Constitutional, and should be as little burden on the people as possible.  Regardless of what the tax is imposed on, the people will ultimately be the source of that revenue.  If on import duties, the people will pay higher prices.  If on excise taxes, the people will pay higher prices.  The importers and manufacturers will simply add the cost to the product to recover the cost of the taxes.

Excise, impost and duties can be applied in an equitable manner if due consideration (not benefit for contributions to campaigns) of their source is considered. 

Let’s look at Duty taxes.  If the duty is on a product produced in a foreign country, and also produced in the United States, a duty tax that penalized the foreign importer in favor of the American producer might be warranted, unless it was high enough to be protective of the American product, allowing excessive profit to the American Manufacturer.  Balance of trade should also be considered with regard to import duties.  If we allow too many imports and reduce our exports, we create an imbalance of trade whereby we owe foreign nations more than they owe us.  Ultimately, this will have a detrimental effect on our whole economy.

Consideration should also be made as to whether a product is a necessity, or, for comfortable life, or, a luxury, something only desired by a small portion of our population.  Consideration of the circumstance that lead to the Civil War, where the duties tended to place an economic burden on an entire region should be avoided.

To provide fairness in such taxes, perhaps a list of general categories could be developed and all products within that category be taxed at the same rate, or a very small range within that category.

Excise taxes pose a different sort of problem.  When the tax is applied to one object, the price of that object is increased.  In many instances, today, the tax on an item may well exceed the cost to produce, distribute, and sell that item.  This amounts to an extremely unfair burden on those who use that product.  It might also provide an economic favor to a similar item that is not subject to the same excise tax.

* * *

Now, let us look at the direct taxes.  At the time of the Constitution, there were two forms of direct tax.  One was on land; the other was a capitation tax, which was an equal tax on each ‘head’.  One form of capitation tax was the poll tax, which was made illegal by the 19th Amendment.  The only tax even remotely similar to the Capitation Tax, that we have, today, though not envisioned by the Framers, is the income tax.  It is not apportioned, though the Framers considered apportioning to be absolutely necessary in both direct taxes and representation.  Surely, the impracticality, along with the expense associated with collecting the income tax, makes it a likely candidate for history, not for a means of efficiently and effectively raising revenue.

Perhaps an alternative in the method of collection, consistent with what Mr. Madison gave us, would be in order.  Suppose we realize that the federal government will never again face the difficulty in receiving monies due from requisitions to the states.  Can there be any doubt that the means, and, more than likely, the willingness to “pay up”, by the states, exists?  Especially, if the 17th Amendment is repealed, thereby returning to the state legislatures the means to resist excessive taxation that they will have to eat out [the] substance of their constituent’s pockets?  Clearly, they understand more than the federal government the economic abilities of their own state.  Clearly, they would best represent us in defending against excessive spending by the federal government.

We can include another benefit to this method of collection.  Today, the federal government collects taxes through their burdensome system.  They then establish a bureaucracy, which is assigned the responsibility to determine redistribution back to the states, based upon evaluation of need determined by people appointed, not elected, into that capacity.  How susceptible to undue influence is such a system?  And, how many dollars are squandered in the re-administration of funds that left the state only to be returned to them?  Finally, how much influence has the redistribution given to the state and local government by simply putting conditions, probably detrimental to the people, on those agencies that are the beneficiary of these returned funds?  Are not our local and state governments more qualified to determine where this money should go to support the needs of the state?  Need we pay federal people to ask state people, whom we also have to pay, to decide the what, where and how much will come back to the state, and pay both ends of this middleman when he is not even necessary if the State collects the funds before settling the requisition, and then retains that which is left?