Claiming Almost Everything is “Commerce”
20. Jul, 2009 
106 Comments
by Rob Natelson
How can Congress get around the Tenth Amendment and regulate almost every aspect of American life?
One way is by claiming that the Tenth Amendment doesn’t apply because Congress is merely acting within the scope of its enumerated powers. But to make this claim, one must assume that some of the enumerated powers are much broader than they really are.
One of the enumerated powers cited by advocates of the modern monster-state is the Commerce Power. This derives primarily from two sources:
(1) the Constitution’s grant to Congress of authority to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States” and
(2) the Constitution’s grant to Congress of authority to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers. . .”
According to promoters of the monster-state, those constitutional phrases go further than allowing Congress to regulate trade among the states. They also allow Congress to control manufacturing, wages, agriculture, crime, mining, land use, firearm possession, and a range of other activities.
How can they justify this? Basically, they make two arguments. The first argument was spun during the New Deal by a University of Chicago law professor. (Too many law professors spend entirely too much time fabricating constitutional theories to promote big government.)
This professor argued that during the Founding Era the word “commerce” meant more than trade. Instead, he contended, “commerce” included all gainful economic activities. Hence Congress has a license to regulate the entire economy.
An even broader version of this theory was published more recently by a Yale law professor. He maintains that “commerce” means any human interaction – so the federal government can regulate almost anything, so long as it doesn’t trample one of the specific guarantees in the Constitution, such as Free Speech.
On investigation, however, the claim that “commerce” meant “all gainful activities” or “all interactions” turns out to be completely untrue. It flies in the face of much of what we know about the Founding Era, including specific representations by leading Founders that most regulation would be reserved to the states.
But because it is sometimes necessary to prove the obvious, several other academics (such as Georgetown University’s Randy Barnett and I) have examined literally thousands of appearances of the word “commerce” in the historical records from the Founding Era. And those records show clearly that “Commerce” in the Constitution means trade and associated activities, but no more (e.g., http://www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson/articles/Commerce%20Clause.pdf).
The second argument for an almost unlimited Commerce Power currently prevails on the U.S. Supreme Court. (Don’t let anyone tell you the present court is “conservative” on such matters.) This argument acknowledges that when the Founders wrote “Commerce,” they meant only trade and a few allied activities, such as navigation.
But it goes on to say that modern economic life, unlike life during the Founding Era, is highly interdependent, so it is now “necessary and proper” for Congress to regulate everything that substantially affects commerce.
But this argument also ignores history. Economic interdependence is nothing new: the promoters of the Constitution themselves emphasized it. But they also assured the public that, interdependent or not, most activities could be regulated only by the states.
They added that the Necessary and Proper Clause added nothing to federal authority, but merely clarified that the legal “doctrine of incidental powers” applied to the Constitution. And no power could be “incidental” if its scope swamped the principal power. In other words, Congress couldn’t take over a big field like manufacturing or agriculture on the pretense of regulating commerce.
If the Supreme Court were doing its job in this area, it would restrict Congress to the authority granted by the people through the Constitution. Because the Court is not doing what it should, it is up to the people to recall the federal government to its constitutional limits.
Rob Natelson is Professor of Law at The University of Montana, and a leading constitutional scholar. (See www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm.) His opinions are his own, and should not be attributed to any other person or institution.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Well, my italics obviously didn’t work, darn it.
Michael,
The question is, WHO will overturn Wickard v. Filburn? Constitutionally, SCOTUS has the authority to decide which decisions will hold up and which will be overturned, not us. That’s how they set up the rule of law. And if you ask me, the commerce clause isn’t the only fly in the ointment, although its probably got the biggest bite.
Monica,
Bracketing won’t work in this forum. Use “lesser than” and “greater than” symbols, like so. See, works every time.
Anyway, “agree to disagree?” You mean about the excessive tax on tobacco products? No. I absolutely and unabashedly agree. I don’t personally buy into this “let’s tax the hell out of everyone that doesn’t follow along with the “popularity of the day”" mentality. I’m more apt to disagree with your assertion that organized protests “knocks the stuffing out of independence.” Precisely how do you figure that? Have the tax protests been effective to date? Well, it’s something of a debatable point. That is, if you think that three months time is enough to get a good guage on it. As someone else has said elsewhere, it would be very interesting to see exactly how many tax protesters are depriving government of its lifebread by necessity vs. the number doing so voluntarily.
Leaderless Resistance could be a much more powerful tool than any one organaized effort. Its just that there’s so much fear running rampant…
Ideas can not be stopped. We are in the idea spreading stage of this movement. But eventually organization and leadership is essential. Mobs can be manipulated. Decentralized leadership with common core values on the principles of liberty can not. Study the difference between the French and American Revolution. Don’t be goaded into revolt. Hold out for true revolution.
Thanks for the tip, Terry!
I appreciate the short time the tea parties have been in existance, its just that I’ve been at this so long and the oligarchs are moving so much more quickly now to fence us in that my patience is wearing a wee bit thin. I’ll put away my whip now
The group vs the individual mentality: you’ll so often hear people ask, “what can one person do?” and there’s really a lot one person CAN do, but there’s tremendous risk attached to their actions … or inactions, preferably (non compliance). But the answer most often given to that question is to join a group and I think that limits us. Both methods would be ideal.
I agree, Donald, mobs can be manipulated more easily than individuals and the French revolution is a great example of that. Its a fine line though. One bad leader can be as harmful as no leader at all and I guess we’ve had some darn good examples of that already right here in river city, even within the constitutional limits placed upon that leadership.
I thought revolt was the root of revolution. That could be wrong, but believe me, I’m not recommending a fire storm. We’d lose before we could get our proverbial pants zipped up.
Monica said, “Constitutionally, SCOTUS has the authority to decide which decisions will hold up and which will be overturned, not us. That’s how they set up the rule of law.”
I say, “NO, NO, NO!”
What Monica said reflects the mindset which permitted the statists to take over our country & which keeps them in power. It is also what we are taught in law school – but it is a Lie.
The federal judges are SUBJECT TO the U.S. Constitution. When judges set themselves above the Constitution, their acts are mere usurpations and deserve to be treated as such. When the federal courts issue opinions which are usurpations, the “Rule of Law” requires us to spit on their lawless opinions and refuse to obey them.
The federal courts are NOT the final authorities on the meaning of the Constitution. WE THE PEOPLE are the final authorities. The point is made again & again in The Federalist Papers. E.g., Alexander Hamilton considered the people to be “the natural guardians of the Constitution”, & contemplated “a people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.” (The Federalist, No. 16, 10th Para).
In Federalist No. 33, Hamilton cited Art. VI, cl.2, as showing that laws which are not pursuant to the Constitution are merely acts of usurpation and deserve to be treated as such (7th Para). He also said:
“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.” (6th Para)
That includes, among other things, a free people saying, “Hell, NO!”
Here is an interesting & helpful article, by Timothy Baldwin, Esq.:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090724.html
PH
monica: One bad leader can be as harmful as no leader at all
A key word I used above is decentralized leadership. But common ideals on liberty is the glue that holds us together.
monica: I thought revolt was the root of revolution.
Well it may be the beginning (as in Lexington & Concord –”the shot heard round the world”) but its not the root. Freedom core values are the root.
Ooops! Obviously, I am NOT saying that Monica is lying!
My point is simply that the statement she made & which I quoted, is not accurate. I believed the same Lie when I was told it in law school many years ago. PH
Well gee, I didn’t think you were calling me a liar, Publius Huldah, just that I was wrong and for sure its not the first time I’ve been accused of that!!
So we’re back to jury nullification, as that’s the only constitutional recourse I know of for stopping bad laws. That’s always been available to us and look where its gotten us. Nowhere. Jurors don’t have to be competent or knowledgable to be selected, most just do whatever the judge tells them to do. The wake up call is that one can go to jail simply for trying to inform jurors of their rights and powers. So what other remedies do we have against usurious rulings that I’m apparently missing? Law ENFORCEMENT enforces their decisions, not ours.
I’m probably not as pessimistic as it may sound about the potential for redress …. well, okay, I’m not exactly an optimist either. But somebody please tell me what Hamilton’s “what Prudence justifies” means in real terms. Far as I can tell, they’re just pretty words with no teeth.
Donald, Oh yes, decentralized leadership is key. So why aren’t we battering down the doors of our decentralized county commissioner”s offices and knocking some sense into their heads? (figuratively, of course.)
OK all…
A real time explanation seems to be in order. I offer as I seem to have hit a nerve or two…
In terms of taking action there is little choice. However, the mob mentality of grabbing a gun won’t work. Then too, neither will any revolutionary endevor that uses the ideas of short fuse and tear it all down.
What I am requesting is the best of all, that we simply organize this.
I propose a Nationwide Constitutional Militia composed of every gun owning American Citizen.
Further, that we, as a group, exercise our base rights to defend against those who would, in any way, attempt to take our Constitutional freedoms away, no matter who.
From this ‘force’ replacements for those removed, put into the respective office.
>This goes a long way and there is too much info on this to post here.<
In order to have a solid idea of what is being looked at and into, I recomend the following link:
http://wwwsaf.org/LawReviews/Mullins1.htm
This report covers all the relationships involved with The Tenth Amendment, Commerce, and States rights.
After each of you read (it’s a long one) this, see if your take is not modified a bit.
We have what can be a really great system, IF, it is adjusted towards the intent and spirit contained in our Constitution.
That said, Admiralty Law has no bearing, influence, nor jurisdiction over a dry land citizen. Common law does. Do not ‘pass the bar’ or recognize the courts jurisdiction nor their officers. You have this right.
The idea of using common law as our basis, negates almost all the present problems.
As an example; the housing crisis. As reported in The Herald Tribune, Sarasota, Florida: none of the officials did anything to stop it. This makes each of them replaceable, so says The Constitution.
Acts of intended abuse of any citizen, and any restrictions unduely limiting or restricting in any way, the normal conduction of ‘commerce’, is strictly prohibited…any and all license to, travel, conduct business, etc. Other than as described and defined by Common Law…
It would seem ‘we’ need to relegislate a whole lot of ‘laws’. AND, throw the bums out who think it such a good idea to have limited our rights thus far.
However much I enjoy a lively discussion, slow down on the coffee, and reduce the passion level a bit.
Then consider joining together as a joint effort, a national group dedicated to reinstituting the Bill of Rights and The Constitution.
Retaining legal representation is being worked on with some interest, etc.
So take the angst and passion of revolt and revolution into the driving force of reason, and let us move it on down the line! Getting ready to do it right this time, as I am.
Drake: I propose a Nationwide Constitutional Militia composed of every gun owning American Citizen.
Have you heard of The Appleseed Project? I’ve been to one, and they are excellent. I think it is essentially what you have in mind. They are growing like crazy.
Your link didn’t work for me Drake.
Interesting series of posts.
I wonder if any of you are connected with Edwin Vieira’s Committees of Safety (http://www.committeesofsafety.org/). Might be something to look into.
Regarding the state militia, here in Maine it is managed by the Governor, and has some restrictions for joining (ages 18-45), so being part of the militia here is iffy at best. As far as being part of a national militia, I’m concerned about how big a target that would be for the feds (which already don’t like or trust militias).
Also, my belief is that the states are the keys to the solutions, and I have recently viewed Tom Woods’ video “Thomas Jefferson and the Principles of ‘98″ on Google in which he discusses at some length early American concerns about the federal government. Video, which you may all have already seen, is here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2833064339712731418
During the War of 1812, the Connecticut legislature commented:
“It must not be forgotten, that the state of Connecticut is a FREE SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT state; that the United States are a confederacy of states; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated republic.”
The statement is true for all states, and that’s why I am so positive about a state based solution, and have pretty well given up on a federal solution. It doesn’t seem to be in the fed’s interest to monitor and restrain itself.
Appologies to all!
The correct link is:
http://www.saf.org/LawReview/Mullins1.htm
Please ponder this very serious and critical question – What if Commerce essentially, legally and practically means any activity, trade or exchange of goods or services which are NOT executed/transacted in the lawful money of substance as outlined in the original American Coinage Act(s)?
There are no actual ‘gains’ made by any party involved in such transactions as what takes place is an equal exchange of property, therefore the transaction is NOT taxable as no “income” was derived by any of the parties involved in such a transaction.
Worse still – And this is the key to all of this trust me on this one – What if the lawful money of substance (as clearly described in both the original organic Constitution for the united states of America and the original American Coinage Acts) has been completely removed out of circulation due to America (and most other ‘Westernized’ countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, England etc) having seriously ‘defaulted’ upon their loans obtained from the ‘Bank of England’, practices which commenced as far back as 1776?
When one is using lawful money of substance (i.e. gold coin or paper money that is at least redeemable in gold or silver as clearly described in both the original American organic Constitution for the united states of America or the original American Coinage Act(s)), one has full title to this form of “lawful money” – when a transaction takes place using lawful money redeemable in substance such as gold or silver a complete exchange of ‘title’ to both the money and the property takes place, and there are no third party interests involved in the transaction whatsoever. The party accepting the lawful money takes full title to the lawful money and the party accepting the property in exchange for the lawful money takes full title to the property.
Now what if a foreign private bank/institution has completely replaced the once lawful money that was redeemable in gold or silver (and minted in accordance with the original American Coinage Act and as defined in the original American Constitution for the united states of America) with paper money that is not redeemable in any substance but instead, a mere promise to pay? i.e. ‘Legal Tender/Currency’ rather than ‘lawful’ money.
What if that which is backing this so called new ‘legal tender’ is anything/property that is registered to the Federal Government? i.e. Your body (birth certificate), your marriage and the fruits therof (marriage certificates and licenses), your property (registration of titles)?
Is there any lawful money redeemable in gold or silver in circulation today which ensures that you have full title to the coin to begin with and then full title to the property that you exchange the coin for?
If not, then all of your transactions today are being conducted in COMMERCE and all of them are legally and rightfully regulated by the Federal Government, which in a jurisdictional sense, is really a foreign/international entity set up by the (international) financial institutions that is handling the original defaults on the loans which were borrowed by America and most other countries commencing as far back as 1776. By the mere use of the legal tender/currency that is in circulation today, each of your transactions and business dealings and trade are being conducted in international commerce due to the fact that the World Bank/IMF have the legal title to the paper money that you are using today.
All property that is registered today has a split title – essentially the Federal Government holds the superior legal title with the owner of the property holding a mere equitable interest in the property. If one does not hold full complete legal title to the money, then one cannot exchange that money (i.e. today’s legal tender/currency) for full complete legal title to any property. The international financial institutions in effect always retain the superior title to both the legal tender/currency and any property that such legal tender/currency is exchanged for.
This is why the current US Federal Government (essentially and jurisdictionally foreign US Federal and other Federal Governments – not the same thing as the original organic federal government of America or any other country) has the power to regulate virtually all aspects of trade and business today.
Follow the (form of) Money – this affects the form of law that a nation is operating under.
Want your sovereignty back? You must first return to a system of lawful money both private and public. This use of such lawful money returns to you both property and your sovereignty without a single shot ever needing to be fired.
When the original American Constitution for the united states of America was drafted, the founding fathers were dealing with lawful money. The Constitution only applies if you are dealing with lawful money in your everyday trading and exchanging of goods and services.
Adelaide Australia
Australia;
Yes it is valid.
However there are some things, such as the underground cash economy, etc.
Then too, the debts are those of the entities regulating, and not those of the several states.
The last open exchange in the state of Indiana, was raided for counterfeiting. They were exchanging reserve notes for gold/silver coin, etc. So far no new news on this.
Any ‘even trade’ is considered tax exempt on goods and services, yet when any intrinsic valuable is used, a ‘value equivalent’ tax is imposed.
As I have stated before, only when a serious number of the general population speaks with a unified voice will any objection be heard. As an example, at least the tea parties were noticed and made a lot of people nervous…
The fed did it and will be stuck with their bills. I know of no private financial interest of that size that has ever gotten away with trillion$.. anyone?
States can invoke financial emergencies and hold all monies normally transacted in terms of taxes. However, a state of war might then exist between the fed and that state.
An equality sharing has never been equal for the states from the fed. Because the fed controls the money, they believe they can do as they please, bailouts, etc.
The way the thing runs right now a serious tunup is in order.
There are some ‘banks’ that use precious metals as their coin of the realm. However, it is held on site and not circulated.
Until the fed is cornered into an accounting/audit things will not change.
The Constitution needs to be reinstated or the USA will become a very dangerous place to be, as in heavy police state…
In addition, the concentration camps are ready…camping anyone?
The whole of it all is not reliant on words, rather decisive action of a slow burn type. A well thought out plan can work depending on how many of the general population is willing to stand up and be counted.
Do not misunderstand me. This is not about a follow me deal, or anyone person. It is a collective of the people, by the people, for the people.
Those who are willing to take such a stand will be required to fill in at those offices vacated.
Think as to what all that means and my other posts as well.
I am in process of contacting The Appleseed Project to see what they think about it all. I intend to share that here, with permission of course.
As I stated, the details are extreme by shear volume, and I can’t see filling up this whole web site with that amount of info.
My associates and I are in process of putting up several interesting sites of our own. We will offer links to this site and several others of interest.
If God is willing and the creeks don’t rise too much, maybe early next week. I’ll post that info here, with permission, as it becomes available.
>Now for the big question!
How brave are all of you?
Because I saw nothing happening and that I was being ignored by the adminstration, I made a post:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/drakebailey
Specific questions for the president, so far ignored.
If these people are going to do what I posted, then I believe I/we have nothing to lose.
So get ready, because ‘they’ are…
Australian Observer: Premise: What if Commerce essentially, legally and practically means any activity, trade or exchange of goods or services which are NOT executed/transacted in the lawful money of substance as outlined in the original American Coinage Act(s)? There are no actual ‘gains’ made by any party involved…
I don’t agree with the premise. “Commerce” has to do with movement and transaction. Profit is irrelevant. Even if “regulation of commerce” is interpreted broadly, the method of regulation need not include taxation.
AO Conclusion: Want your sovereignty back? You must first return to a system of lawful money both private and public.
Agree completely!
Excellent post, Australian Observer!!!
There’s not much to add to what you said. The organic constitution was overthrown by the corporate constitution a long time ago and very few people noticed. Many still don’t believe it.
Monica,
(1) You’re welcome for the tip.
(2) Don’t put your whip away for good. All of us are apt to break ours out now and again, me included. Indeed, I usually break out and climb atop my own, self-made soap box when I don my whip. And I usually make an attempt at a sommersault with a half-twist on the way down. Not that I’m in any way apologizing for doing so.
The ultimate authority on what the Constitution means is not any branch of government. The Supreme Court established early on that it would declare law by Judicial Fiat when it claimed sole authority to say what the Constitution means (See Marbury v. Madison). The people are the ultimate authority on the Constitution. Unfortunately the people for the most part haven’t read the document, haven’t read the necessary contextual documents such as the Federalist and the Declaration of Independence, and so have abdicated their responsibility to be educated enough to understand when the Constitution is being violated. I have to agree with Lysander Spooner that the people, as juries, need to start acting as the final check on the laws that Congress passes. That alone is not enough to rescue us from our predicament. We need to make it politically unprofitable for Congress to keep passing crap legislation. We need a court that will tell Congress that it needs to actually write laws that can be understood if they expect enforcement. We need an executive that is willing to tell the court to try to enforce its own bad decisions. But there is no money or increase in political affluence by doing the right thing, so we wind up with corruption in different directions from each of the three legitimate branches of government, and unapologetic power grasping from the Administrative “branch.”
Excellent article about the Commerce clause being out of control. I will be reading the law review article you linked to when I get a chance.
In response to the affronteries to our Constitution, we offer The Peoples Court.
This is a ‘Truth Court’ dealing with exactly these kinds of abuses, etc.
The first issue would be to address the several states that are using The Tenth Amendment and offer intercession between them and the federal government/admiralty/corporate legal system.
Within this would be found rulings addressing all these issues.
This is a project under construction by a few of us, now.
Due to the obstruction of ‘justice’ by several entities, and in lieu of sentences, expulsion/exile from our country. They leave everything excepting the clothes on their backs and go.
As I stated in earlier posts, there is way too much detail involved to post here. Consequently, our group is in process of addressing all these issues, and then some, on another site and in a different format. We hope to be functional in the next week or so at most.
We are intending to link to, use, and offer interviews. There is a massive library of information on the issues, people involved, and the circumstances/situations only hinted at in the press.
We are planning to link to several sites including this one (with permission).
Much of the information we put out is going into very well written articles in several publications, hard copy and on the net.
The rights I faught for (Nam 67-68) are not for sale, open to litigation, and out of the reach of the people mentioned.
From the mess I’m seeing, we all have a lot of work to do. Straightening out this mess in simplest form will require people who are willing to put their money where their mouth is, stand up to be counted, and are loyal to base principles of humanity…including all in the federal government. Then the states also need the same cleansing, counties, and municipalities.
Organization anyone?
We few can make all the noise we want and be ignored…unless the group is large and the voices many.
I’m really hoping this issue keeps getting brought up. It has become completely lost. What constitutional authority does congress even have to take on health care? We all know it will use the threat of withholding funds to coerce the states into accepting whatever they come up with. So the federal government takes a large percentage of wealth from the citizens of the states, then make the states grovel to get it back? There is no state power right now.
Most of the reasons are stated in this link:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/108803659
The show won an emmy. I’ve watched it, it names names, and how the system works. It also tells how much data they have on each of us.
Privacy has been sold off in order to target you in every way. Everything you thought was private, isn’t…
Out of control corporations and $…guess who get that $? Our reps…
Our group is trying to get the full video, we’ll see.
Although having a Congress that refuses to respect its constitutional limits is a problem, the main problem with the big, tax-hungry, power-hungry federal government is actually the people, IMO. More specifically, US citizens have evidently not been teaching the Constitution and its history to their children for many generations, particularly the enumerated constitutional principle of state sovereignty. Consequently, the people have been electing lawmakers to their state legislatures and the federal senate who are as state sovereignty-impaired as the voters are. And once these lawmakers are in office, they don’t do their jobs to protect state sovereignty by protecting citizens from unlawful federal taxes and federal government interference in their lives.
And speaking of unlawful federal taxes, note that Chief Justice Marshall had established the following case precedent, now wrongly ignored, which appropriately limits the power of the feds to lay taxes.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” –Chief Justice Marshall, GIBBONS V. OGDEN (1824) http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html
So not only are most federal government spending programs constitutionally unauthorized, but the corrupt Congress never had the power to lay taxes to fund such programs in the first place.
Finally, the following link should help give people an idea as to how state sovereignty-ignorant voters have shot themselves in the foot with big, corrupt federal government.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=199792
In con law, our Harvard-educated professor told us to ignore the 10th amendment because it was no longer relevant. Case law had rendered it moot.
Any professor who claims that the tenth amendment is irrelevant and should be ignored due to being rendered moot by case law needs to be challenged vigorously. The Constitution does not allow for ratification by means of case law, period. Any such bastardization of the Constitution needs to be challenged (despite likelihood of failing). The only remedy provided by the Constitution is the formal ratification process, which is very hard. That is why issues like healthcare or gay rights have never been constitutional.
I agree, except she wasn’t expressing an opinion. She was just observing that between the commerce clause and the feds tying federal funds to federal mandates for states, there really is no state power. By taxing so much money from the citizens, the feds hold all of the power.
It’s also interesting that federal courts interpret the constitution. Talk about a conflict of interest.
You are right. The Courts (judicial branch) are supposed to be independent of the Legislative and the executive branches but they are all in the same bed together. Madison would have been thoroughly disgusted if he could see this.
# Drake Bailey Says:
August 20th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Most of the reasons are stated in this link:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/108803659
The show won an emmy. I’ve watched it, it names names, and how the system works. It also tells how much data they have on each of us.
==============
It appears this link is no longer valid. Do you have another link, or do you know the actual name for the video?
Of course, the simple solution is for states to grow some guts and throw federal police such as the ATF, IRS, TSA, DHS, and such into local jail for violating the rights of their citizenry instead of standing idly by as they do so. That and simply have states start coining their own gold and silver money (it’s constitutional!) good for use only on products and services made or performed entirely within that state, with exchanges for other state or national coinage or FRNs…