A Great (Good?) Debate?

[courtesy Google Images]

A man named “Colin” has recently taken an interest in this blog.  He’s reportedly graduated from one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, was briefly licensed to practice law, but has dropped out of the profession.

He is generally critical of the ideas and conclusions that I promote on this blog. The result has been a kind of “great debate” between Colin and myself and many of this blogs readers.  His comments are intelligent and articulate and have added enormous interest to the blog.  

Here’s an except from one of his recent comments. His comment was much longer.  But I need some sleep, so I’ll have to reply to the remainder of his comments later today.

The following begins with one of my earlier remarks in a previous comment, followed by a question from Colin, followed by my current comment:

Adask original:  But the one common denominator in all of these possible answers is this: the event, act or transaction is presumed by the government to have taken place outside of the perpetual Union; outside the borders of a State of the Union; outside the borders or jurisdiction(s) of The United States of America.

Colin reply:  Can you give us an example of such a transaction?

Adask reply to Colin:  I can try.

•  After the Civil War ended, the congressional Act of March 30^th, A.D. 1870, expressly readmitted “Texas” back into representation in Congress as one of the States of the Union. That Act expressly declared that the name of that State of the Union was “The State of Texas”.  The quote marks are in text of the Act.  Congress did not declare that the proper name for that State of the Union was “Texas,” “TX,” “TEXAS,” “STATE OF TEXAS,” or “state of Texas”.  So far as I know, the proper name for the State of the Union where I am domiciled was and remains “The State of Texas”.

•  Glenn Hegar is the current “Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts”. Given Mr. Hegar’s title, most people would suppose that he’s the “comptroller” for the State of the Union that many people casually refer to as “Texas”—and whose proper State-of-the-Union name is “The State of Texas”.

I have some doubt.  Here’s why:

Suppose Dell Computers sold 1,000 hi-tech computers to the government of “this state” and comptroller Hegar wrote a check to Dell for $1 million to pay for those computers.  Most people would see nothing remarkable in that transaction, but I’d see a problem.

•  Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States declares in part that “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; . . . .”

When Article 1.10.1 was drafted, the only kind of “States” we had were States of the Union.  Thus, the Article 1.10.1 prohibition on “States” using any “Thing but gold or silver Coin as a Tender in Payment of Debts” had to apply only to States of the Union, including whatever additional States of the Union (like “The State of Texas”) that might later added to the Union under Article 4.31.

In what I suspect may be the Founders’ single greatest oversight in the original Constitution, Article 1.10.1 does not expressly apply to districts (like Washington DC), or territories (like Guam or Puerto Rico) or even “states of the United States” (rather than States of the Union; i.e., States of “The United States of America” as per the Articles of Confederation).

Thus, while the States of the Union have always been prohibited by the Constitution from using any Thing but gold and silver Coin as a Tender in Payment of Debts—no such prohibition ever applied to districts, territories or even states that were not part of the Union.

•  In order to make this argument a little more persuasive, you might want to compare the Articles of Confederation (A.D. 1781)—which created/constituted the confederation and perpetual Union styled “The United States of America” (quote marks in the Articles)—to the Constitution of the United States (first ratified by the People in A.D. 1788).

If you do, you’ll see that “The United States of America” includes only the States of the Union.  There is no proviso in the Articles of Confederation for districts like Washington DC or territories like Guam, Puerto Rico of even “Tejas” before it became a State of the Union.

If you read the Constitution (A.D. 1788), you’ll see that two of the biggest changes from the Articles of Confederation (A.D. 1781), were the provisions for: 1) a district that we currently refer to as “Washington DC”; and territories that are owned and operated by the Congress under Article 4.3.2 and are not States of the Union.

•  I know this will generate a smirk but, technically, it could be argued that Washington DC and other federal districts and territories exist “in the United States” (as per the Constitution) but do not exist within the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.

Get that?  Two different jurisdictional “planes”.  One within “The United States of America”; the other “in the United States”?

I know.  Makes you giggle.  But if you read and compare the two documents you’ll see that there was no proviso for districts or territories in the Articles, but there were in the Constitution.  My argument might be mistaken, but it’s not implausible.

Thus, the Article 1.10.1 mandate for use of gold and silver coins as tender in payment of debts applies only to the States of the Union.  It does not expressly apply to Washington DC (or any other “district of the United States”) or any territory “of the United States”.  In fact, that prohibition wouldn’t apply to “states of the United State”—if such “states” could be found or created.

Thus, it’s possible that we have gold and silver money within the States of the Union at the same time the federal government issued fiat currency in the administrative districts, territories or even “state” “of the United States”.  Both currencies would be constitutional, but not in both the “plane” of “The Unites States of America” and also the “plane” of the “United States”.

As I read and compare the Articles and the Constitution, gold and silver are required within the States of the Union; gold and silver is not required in the districts, territories or “states of the United States”.  Fiat currency is unconstitutional within the States of the Union, but is quite acceptable and constitutional within the districts, territories and “states of the United States”.

If there are two planes (The USA and US) they are overlapping and easily confused.  However, I’ve heard stories (not proof) that mere use of Federal Reserve Notes (fiat currency) may be deemed by courts to be sufficient evidence to warrant the presumption that the person merely using fiat currency is transacting his affairs “in the United States” and is therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the “United States” rather than the jurisdiction and laws of whatever State of the Union he might otherwise suppose he’s acting within.

• The federal gov-co removed gold from domestic circulation in A.D. 1934; removed silver from domestic circulation in A.D. 1968, and removed gold-backing for foreign-held paper dollars in A.D. 1971. Under the terms of Article 1.10.1, how could the governments of the States of the Union continue to function?  Under Article 1.10.1, the governments of the States of the Union were rendered insolvent when the feds removed all gold and silver from domestic circulation.

Our currency (including the hypothetical $1 million check drafted by Texas Comptroller Hegar to pay for the Dell computers and/or the currency that backs that check) has not been gold or silver, or even been backed by gold or silver for at least 45 years.  The governments of the States of the Union were seemingly rendered insolvent and inoperable by the federales removal of gold and silver from our national monetary system.

•  So, here’s the conundrum: given that Article 1.10.1 has never been amended or repealed, I can see only two, equally incredible explanations for Comptroller Hegar’s $1 million check:

1) If Mr. Hegar is the Comptroller for the State of the Union styled “The State of Texas,” he violates the Article 1.10.1 mandate for paying debts with gold or silver coin every time he writes a check payable in Federal Reserve Notes/fiat currency. If Hegar is the Comptroller of a State of the Union, he violates the Constitution of the United States every time he pays his employees or suppliers with any form of currency other than gold and silver.  And, that wouldn’t be true for only Mr. Hegar.  Every other “state” comptroller in the country would be violating the Constitution every time they paid a bill with fiat currency.  Or, in the alternative:

2) If Mr. Hegar’s $1 million check to Dell is constitutional, then Mr. Hegar is not the comptroller of a State of the Union (where the Article 1.10.1 mandate for gold and silver applies) but is instead the comptroller for some administrative district, territory or even “state of the United States” that is therefore not bound by the Article 1.10.1 mandate. e., if Hegar’s not violating the Constitution when he signs a check, he must be working for some kind of “state” that is not a State of the Union.

You can see the basis for my confusion.  It appears to me that Comptroller Hegar either violates the Constitution of the United States every time he signs a check, or Comptroller Hegar is holding office in a second kind of “state” other than a State of the Union.

Both explanations are so fantastic that they seem unbelievable.  But I can’t see a third explanation.

If the second explanation is true (and I believe it is), our government is running two sets of “states”—1) the States of the Union that the people presume to be functioning; and 2) a second set of “fictional” states that aren’t States of the Union, aren’t bound by much of the Constitution, and are presumed to exist by the government, but almost none of the People even imagines possible.

Again, these two choice are fantastic and seemingly unbelievable.  But I can’t see a third.  Of course, that may not be surprising since I only attended three semesters of college and most of my early life was spent in construction work

Colin, on the other hand, has graduated with a degree in law from one of America’s most prestigious law schools.  Therefore, I’m hoping that Colin’s law professors taught him enough about Article 1.10.1 that he’ll be able to provide me with a third alternative explanation for the problem I see in Article 1.10.1. Or maybe he’ll be able to explain how it’s lawfully possible for Comptrollers around the country to write checks that aren’t backed by gold and silver without either violating the Constitution or operating in some “official capacity” that is not part of the States of the Union.

Colin wrote additional questions or comments that I intend to respond to, but it’s after 3 AM and I have to get some sleep.  I’ll try to get to some or all of the Colin’s remaining comments/questions later today.