@ taxes

TAXES: "That leaves it up to state governments. Since this process has not even been started, it would probably take several years to even get enough states to start it. By then even more states will be financial derelicts. I can not believe that we could ever get thirty-eight to ratify fairly."

BISCHOFF: There are only 32 states required to make application to the Congress for a convention of state delegates to propose and to ratify. It takes 38 state delegations to ratify at the convention. Most states could put their financial house in order. Wisconsin is proof.

The states which will not are first and foremost California, Illinois, New York and Michigan. These states now only exist due to the ability of the fderal government to spread the debt needed to keep 4 states alive over the wealth and good credit of the other 46 states.

It will not take long for 32 or 38 out of those 46 states to realize that they have to get rid of the 17th Amendment. The repeal of the 16th Amendment will follow. In the meantime, those 46 states could demand the removal of the "legal tender" protection from the FRN. This would make possible an alternative redeemable currency system to circulate parallel with the FRNs.

Once the 16th Amendment is gone, the tax policies of the individual states will be a major factor in the competition for labor, investment and intellectual talent among the 50 states. California, Illinois, New York and Michigan will likely have to default on their obligation, but then they had it coming. They'll just have to convince the bond markets to lend them money again.

The other 46 states, using a redeemable currency and tax policy which does not hurt Labor or Capital, can go ahead and create an atmosphere for a superior living standard for their citizens.

@Bischoff

I would not advise you to stop pushing but that is only because I do not have a better solution. I can not see our society coming out of this mess intact, let alone our country. I only hope we can educate enough, well enough, that they can rebuild without a long dark age on the other side. There was and still is alot of good in Western Civilization. It would be pity, to be unable, to even save a sliver.

We destroyed the madness in Germany and Japan but then helped rebuild them. No one will help to rebuild us. If things go as badly as they might, no will be able to.

@Bischcoff

More and more state governments are obviously fed up with the mandates and other stupidity of the federal government. Yet more of them become dependent on federal money by the year, just like the citizens. Surely more people all the time can see the inevitable end of the insane spending. Yet they return the worse offenders, election after election. The people will never champion this anti-democratic measure, because they will never see that it will be to their own benefit.

That leaves it up to state governments. Since this process has not even been started, it would probably take several years to even get enough states to start it. By then even more states will be financial derelicts. I can not believe that we could ever get thirty-eight to ratify fairly. And fairly, is nothing like what we have to contend with now. Surely it will be worse by then.

@ taxes

TAXES: "As much as you, and, believe it or not I, would like to see the 16th and 17th repealed, I think there is about as much chance of that happening as there is a return to the Articles of Confederation, namely nil."

BISCHOFF: I wouldn't be so sure. I became convinced about five years ago that it is the 17th Amendment which is a time bomb embedded inside the U.S. Constitution, ready to blow it up. When I started to voice my opinion about the danger of the 17th Amendment five years ago, there were half a dozen mentions on the internet about the need to repeal the amendment. Today there are in excess of 10,000 hits on the subject.

I agree with you that the U.S. Congress will never propose an amendment to repeal the 17th Amendment. However, the founders were well aware that it may come to a situation were the Congress won't act. Therefore, in their wisdom, the founders provided for a second avenue by which to amend the U.S. Constitution.

Granted, no amendment was ever proposed by the alternative way to amend. Every amendment ratified sofar has been first proposed by the U.S. Congress. The first ten amendments (aka the "Bill of Rights") were promised to be made part of the Constitution to get the states to ratify it, though they were actually not formally proposed by the U.S. Congress until its first session in 1789. They were ratified by the states in 1791.

If people understood that under Article V of the U.S. Constitution they can lobby their state governor and state legislators to have them make application to the U.S. Congress to call for a convention of state delegates to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, enough pressure can be put on Congress for a routine approval the application.

A denial of the application by the U.S. Congress would be extremely serious. It would actually portent the dissolution of the United States.

As to the repeal of the 16th Amendment, it is a foregone conclusion at the very minute the 17th Amendment is repealed. The "new" U.S. Senators, again selected by state legislators under the original U.S. Constitution, would in short order propose an amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment demanded by their states. A failure to heed the demand by the state legislators would render U.S. Senators again subject to recall.

With the 16th and 17th Amendments removed, the U.S. Constitution could again function as intended by the founders. The alternative is to keep going with the 16th and 17th Amendment in tact until the polity of the American Republic created with the U.S. Constitution is completely blown to smithereens.

Is that a desired outcome, or would it be better to do what you can now to work for the repeal of these two diabolical amendments... ??? Personally, I much rather meet my maker knowing that I acted, evenso the odds of success were minuscule.

SCHOOL SUCKS: The American Way

Don't let the title fool you. This video is actually about how government-run schooling contributed to the rise of socialism, imperialism and eventually fascism in Germany between the 1890s and 1940s.

Click to view link

@Bischoff

While I agree with your assessment of the Articles of Confederation as unworkable, the constitution, even as amended by the Bill of Rights, is obviously easily manipulated for increase of federal power. As much as you, and, believe it or not I, would like to see the 16th and 17th repealed, I think there is about as much chance of that happening as there is a return to the Articles of Confederation, namely nil.

@washingtongriz

Nearly any action that would cut spending/power in Washington would make our situation better. Yet very minimal cuts, even actions that would only slow the rate of increase of federal spending, are roundly derided by the MSM, politicians, and special interests of every stripe. Such a radical change as returning to the Articles of Confederation will just be ignored by almost everyone. Any action that reduces the power or oportunities for corruption of politicians will fail without profound changes first being forced upon them. The soundness of your logic in presenting such a proposal makes no difference whatsoever.

"the Southern states generated most of the government revenue at the time because of import duties and the Union could not survive without the Southern revenues"

Minor correction: "the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT of the Union could not survive... "

The "union" of the people themselves could survive just fine without the government. The south at the time was - rightfully - trying to starve the beast.

I'm going to go back and read the other axioms - you've hooked my interest. It dawned on me that We the People can have a new "Confederation" any time we want. As a very public "workaround" to the present broken system. We just walk away from it. Instead of changing the "government" we have, we just form a new one that suits us better - right in the midst of (and completely ignoring) the original. That is sure to provoke a response, but that's a good thing.

Mr. Holland

Thank you for one of the most erudite articles ever to appear on TDB. Perhaps doctrinaire anarchists will take heed to the lessons of history. I doubt it.

Return to the Articles of Confederation... !!! It's a quaint notion, mostly advanced by the libertarians. Utopians they are.

The Articles of Confederation didn't work. They were relatively effective while the War of Independence raged. However, no sooner was the Treaty of Paris concluded, disagreement among the states about paying for a continued common defense set in. With it came all sorts of other disputes and retaliations.

Yes, the states had much more autonomy under the Articles of Confederation, but this independence led to wide disagreements over contributions to a common defense, and it threatened in the survival of all of them.

The British, the French and the Spaniards, all had their own designs on how to take advantage of the strive between the states. These thirteen North American States constituted a small sliver of land along the Atlantic Coast, barely a hundred miles deep. The British and the French were still in Canada and all along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, stirring up trouble among the Indians. The Spanish were in Florida and in Mexico claiming the South and the Southwest of what is today U.S. territory.

The U.S. Constitution was designed to bandy together a number of newly independent states which had their disagreements with each other, but which collectively had interests in, and a need for a common defense. The U.S. Constitution, in contrast to the Articles of Confederation, replaced the unanimity required among the states for agreements to pay a federal tax with a super majority needed to agree to bind all the states to pay a tax to the federal government. This was necessary to be able to successfully swart the designs of the European powers against the survival of the independence of the North American States.

To bring up Washington's squashing of the Whiskey rebellion as evidence that the U.S. Constitution was all about giving power to the federal government to exercise force against the population, portraits a lack of understanding why Washington was insistent on putting down the Whiskey rebellion. It has nothing to do with revelling in the power to exercise force, regardless of the propaganda put forth by the libertarians. This sentence alone will brand me as a statist in their eyes. So, let me explain why Washington acted against the moonshiners.

The U.S. Constitution placed responsibility for immigration and common defense in the hands of the federal government. The revenue to perform this function was to come from the states, but as a head tax or capitation tax apportioned equally among the states. The per capita tax was based on the premise that each man's life was as precious as that of the next man.

The only other revenue allowed for the federal government to collect was:

1. An Excise, which was a tax on domestic production. This was not to be merely a source of revenue for the federal government. It was primarily a means by which the federal government could control the production of goods which could lead to excesses, and which thereby would undermine the survival of a state as well, as the survival of its neighboring states.

The unhampered production of whiskey, and its unlimited consumption undermined the good order in a state. It was the intent of the Excise to control detrimental effects of the consumption of certain goods on good order. This is what Washington was after, the preservation of good order.

It wasn't the enjoyment gained by exercising force against sovereign individuals or sovereign states which prompted him to engage with the moonshiners. It was quite simply the preservation of good order which was the intent and for which a provision had been made in the original Constitution, regardless of what the libertarians want you to believe.

2. A cousin to the Excise is the Impost. It was another source of revenue for the federal government which as its primary purpose was to give power to control gambling in the several states which could undermine good order.

3. Duties on foreign goods to control foreign influence on domestic markets rounds out the list of sources of revenue to which the federal government had a right under the original U.S. Constitution.

Once the 16th Amendment (Income Tax) was ratified in 1913, all the original
sources of revenue became incidental, but much more importantly, the intent of maintaining good order by collecting these revenues was jeopardized.

On the heels of the ratification of the 16th Amendment came the ratification of the 17th Amendment (popular elections of U.S. Senators) in 1913. If you want to lament the loss of federalism, it is the ratification of the 17th Amendment with which the states resigned their voices in the legislature of the U.S. Congress which gets the blame.

Instead of clamoring for the restoration of the Articles of Confederation, work for the repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments. It makes a heck of a lot more sense.

This is such a relevant, well-written commentary. Why only a 4.4?

Well stated Mr. Holland. I am anxious for Axiom 4,

Yes, getting there is the hard part. We have the votes of the low end of the government trough, and the money of the high end to convince the undecided, against it. Whole professions, such as tax lawyer, will disappear. It will be the biggest political fight ever. That is, if it is just political.

If only Patrick Henry had accepted the invitation to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he may have influenced those attending to head it off. Hamilton became upset, threw up his hands, and left when he didn't get his full agenda approved. It is possible Mr. Henry could have worked with the rest. But, he chose to stay home wanting nothing to do with it.

Yes but I want to read the meat of the next Axiom, exactly what is the mechanism for states to withdraw from the union, form a modern day version of the Articles of Confederation. Then if interested states could reunite under a weak confederation central government like in Switzerland with currency competition and some national debt repudiation.

That is a concise, hard-hitting, and compelling summary, Mr. Holland. Thank you for it!