South Carolina May Adopt Own Currency

s500

A JOINT RESOLUTION

TO PROVIDE FOR A JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE TO STUDY WHETHER SOUTH CAROLINA SHOULD ADOPT A CURRENCY TO SERVE AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE CURRENCY DISTRIBUTED BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM IN THE EVENT OF A MAJOR BREAKDOWN OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.
Whereas, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the police power of a state is a power originally and always belonging to the states, not surrendered by them to the general government, nor directly restrained by the Constitution of the United States, and essentially exclusive; and
Whereas, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the police powers of the states extend to the protection of the lives, health, and property of the citizens, and to the preservation of good order; and
Whereas, the protection of the lives, health, and property of South Carolina's citizens, and the preservation of good order in the State, depend upon the maintenance of both an adequate system of governmental finance and a sound and robust private economy that cannot be maintained in the absence of a sound currency; and
Whereas, the present monetary and banking systems of the United States, centered around the Federal Reserve System, have come under ever-increasing strain during the last several years, and will be exposed to ever-increasing and predictably debilitating strain in the years to come; and
Whereas, many widely recognized experts predict the inevitable destruction of the Federal Reserve System's currency through hyperinflation in the foreseeable future; and
Whereas, in the event of hyperinflation, depression, or other economic calamity related to the breakdown of the Federal Reserve System, for which the State is not prepared, the state's governmental finances and private economy will be thrown into chaos, with gravely detrimental effects upon the lives, health, and property of South Carolina's citizens, and with consequences fatal to the preservation of good order throughout the State; and
Whereas, South Carolina can avoid or at least mitigate many of the economic, social, and political shocks to be expected to arise from hyperinflation, depression, or other economic calamity related to the breakdown of the Federal Reserve System only through the timely adoption of an alternative sound currency that the state's government and citizens may employ without delay in the event of the destruction of the Federal Reserve System's currency; and
Whereas, "legal tender" means a currency that must be accepted in payment of a debt denominated in United States dollars if the parties have not stipulated that some alternative currency is to be used as their medium of payment or are not otherwise required to use such alternative currency; and
Whereas, the Federal Reserve System's currency has been designated legal tender under Title 31, United States Code, Section 5103; and
Whereas, under Title 12, United States Code, Section 411 and Title 31, United States Code, Section 5118(b) and (c), the Federal Reserve System's currency is not redeemable in gold or silver coin or the equivalent in bullion; and
Whereas, the Federal Reserve System's currency not being redeemable in gold or silver coin or the equivalent in bullion is being identified by more and more experts as a major reason for the ever-increasing instability of the Federal Reserve System; and
Whereas, all gold and silver coins of the United States are designated "legal tender" under Title 31, United States Code, Sections 5103 and 5112(h), and must be designated by Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States; and
Whereas, pursuant to Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, each state must make gold and silver coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; and
Whereas, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the states may adopt whatever currency they desire for the purposes of performing their sovereign governmental functions, even to the extent of adopting gold and silver coin for those purposes while refusing to employ a currency not redeemable in gold or silver coin that Congress has designated "legal tender"; and
Whereas, "the police power" being the primary sovereign governmental function of every state, every state may adopt its own currency, consisting of gold or silver, or both, whenever necessary and proper to facilitate exercises of that power in aid of the general welfare of the state and its citizens; and
Whereas, under Title 31, United States Code, Section 5118(d)(2), and Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to, the Constitution of the United States, Americans may employ whatever currency they choose to stipulate as the medium for payment of their private debts, including gold or silver, or both, to the exclusion of a currency not redeemable in gold or silver that Congress may have designated "legal tender"; and
Whereas, under Title 31, United States Code, Section 5118(d)(2), and Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to, the Constitution of the United States, the citizens of South Carolina may choose to employ as the medium for payment of their private debts whatever alternative currency, consisting of gold or silver, or both, that the State may adopt in the exercise of "the police power"; and
Whereas, various systems of alternative currency employing gold or silver, or both, in the form of coin or its equivalent in bullion have already proved themselves in the free market, and could either be employed by the State directly or be used as models for a new system created by the State to meet South Carolina's unique needs; and
Whereas, the adoption of an alternative currency consisting of gold or silver, or both, would not destabilize the present monetary and banking systems or the state's governmental finances private economy because it would not compel or commit the State or her citizens to employ such alternative currency to the exclusion of the Federal Reserve System's currency immediately, but would merely make the alternative currency available, and enable it to be used in competition with and preference to the Federal Reserve System's currency, to the degree that the need for such use became apparent; and
Whereas, the United States Congress, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve System have taken and are preparing to take no action to provide the United States with an alternative to the Federal Reserve System's currency, in the likely event that the latter would be destroyed through hyperinflation. Now, therefore,
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION    1.    (A)    A joint subcommittee is hereby created to study whether this State should adopt a currency to serve as an alternative to the currency distributed by the Federal Reserve System in the event of a major breakdown of the Federal Reserve System.
(B)    The joint subcommittee shall consist of eight members appointed as follows: four members appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and four members appointed by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. The joint subcommittee shall elect a chairman and vice-chairman from among its membership.
(C)    In conducting its study the joint subcommittee shall consider recommendations for legislation, with respect to the need, means, and schedule for establishing such an alternative currency. Administrative staff support shall be provided by the Board of Economic Advisors.
(D)    No recommendation of the joint subcommittee shall be adopted if a majority of the House members or a majority of the Senate members appointed to the joint subcommittee vote against the recommendation and vote for the recommendation to fail notwithstanding the majority vote of the joint subcommittee. The joint subcommittee shall submit its report to the General Assembly by November 1, 2011.
SECTION    2.    This joint resolution takes effect upon approval by the Governor.

----XX----
This web page was last updated on February 3, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Why can’t the US legalize drugs? There’s ‘too much money in it,’ Clinton says

Why can’t the US legalize drugs? There’s ‘too much money in it,’ Clinton says

By Daniel Tencer
Monday, February 7th, 2011 -- 5:55 pm

Tags: easier road, intellectual bankruptcy,jacob sullum, legal recourse, legalization,News, position, sarah palin, Secretary, slip

In what will likely be seen as something of a Freudian slip by the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton said recently in a Mexican news interview that the United States cannot legalize drugs as a means of fighting the black market because "there is just too much money in it."

Asked by Denise Maerker of Televisa what she thought of drug legalization, Clinton said it was unlikely to work.

"There is just too much money in it," Clinton said. "You can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped. They can’t be given an even easier road to take, because they will then find it in their interest to addict even more young people."

The comments drew criticism from legalization advocates who argued her position was a misunderstanding of the situation.

"Clinton's response illustrates not only the intellectual bankruptcy of the prohibitionist position but the economic ignorance of a woman who would be president," Jacob Sullum argued at Reason.com.

Clinton evidently does not understand that there is so much money to be made by selling illegal drugs precisely because they are illegal. Prohibition not only enables traffickers to earn a "risk premium" that makes drug prices much higher than they would otherwise be; it delivers this highly lucrative business into the hands of criminals who, having no legal recourse, resolve disputes by spilling blood.

At the Drug War Chronicle, Scott Morgan called Clinton's argument "perfectly incoherent" and argued it flew in the face of economic theory.

I can't help but wonder what everyone on the left would say if this preposterous analysis came from Sarah Palin, rather than Hillary Clinton. It's the sort of profound nonsense that ought to get you skewered by Jon Stewart, yet our Secretary of State will almost certainly get a free pass on misunderstanding literally everything about the escalating violence below our border.

Clinton's interview focused mainly on Mexico's drug war, which was launched in 2006 by President Felipe Calderon and has cost an estimated 34,000 lives, including more than 1,000 minors.

The toll's severity prompted former Mexican President Vicente Fox to come out in favor of legalizing drugs as a way of taking the steam out of organized crime.

President Calderon has not gone as far himself, but did approve legislation decriminalizing possession of small amounts of most recreational drugs, and has called for a debate on new approaches to dealing with drugs.

-- With additional reporting by Stephen C. Webster

Obama official says new budget won't be pain-free

Obama official says new budget won't be pain-free By MARTIN CRUTSINGER  AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama will send Congress on Monday a $3 trillion-plus budget for 2012 that promises $1.1 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade by freezing many domestic programs for five years, trimming military spending and limiting tax deductions for the wealthy. Jacob Lew, the president's budget director, said Sunday that the new spending plan for the 2012 would disprove the notion that "we can do this painlessly ... we are going to make tough choices." Republicans rejected that appraisal, castigating Obama for proposals that will boost spending in such areas as education, public works and research, and charging that Obama's cuts are not deep enough. They vowed to push ahead with their own plans to trim $61 billion in spending from the seven months left in the current budget year and then squeeze Obama's 2012 budget plan for billions of dollars in additional savings in response to voters alarmed at an unprecedented flood of red ink. "He's going to present a budget tomorrow that will continue to destroy jobs by spending too much, borrowing too much and taxing too much," House Speaker John Boehner said on NBC's "Meet the Press." Boehner released a statement from 150 economists calling on Obama to take immediate action to reduce government spending. Lew, appearing on CNN's "State of the Union," rejected criticism that the $1.1 trillion deficit-cutting goal fell far short of the $4 trillion in deficit cuts outlined by the president's own deficit commission in a plan unveiled last December. That proposal would attack the biggest causes of the deficits - spending on the benefit programs Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security - and defense spending. Obama's budget avoided the painful choices put forward by the commission on benefit programs. Lew said it would be a mistake to say the report did not have an impact on the president's proposals. He cited a proposal to pay for keeping doctors' payments under Medicare from being cut sharply. Instead of borrowing the money to prevent those cuts, the administration was putting forward $62 billion in savings in other areas to prevent those cuts over the next two years, Lew said. In addition, the administration is reviving a proposal Congress rejected last year to limit tax deductions the wealthy can get for charitable donations, mortgage interest payments and state and local taxes, and using those savings to pay for keeping the Alternative Minimum Tax from hitting more middle-class families over the next two years. An administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity before the budget was released, said one-third of the $1.1 trillion in deficit reduction the administration is projecting over the next decade would come from additional revenue with the bulk of that reflecting the limitations on tax deductions by the wealthy. The administration has said that its five-year freeze will save $400 billion over the next decade with many programs slated for even bigger cuts. Community development block grants would be trimmed by $300 million, the government's program to help low-income people pay their heating bills would be cut in half for a savings of $2.5 billion, and a Great Lakes environmental restoration program would but cut by 25 percent to save $125 million, according to an Office of Management and Budget summary. That document also said that the budget would cut the Pentagon's spending plans over the next decade by $78 billion with reductions in various weapons programs deemed unnecessary including the C-17 aircraft, the alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and the Marine expeditionary vehicle. The OMB document also listed $1 billion in cuts in grants for large airports, almost $1 billion in a reduction in support to states for water treatment plants and other infrastructure programs and savings from consolidating public health programs run by the Center for Disease Control and various U.S. Forest Service programs. The administration will also propose saving $100 billion from Pell Grants and other higher education programs over a decade through belt-tightening with the savings used to keep the maximum college financial aid award at $5,550, according to an administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the budget's Monday release. The OMB summary said that the $1.1 trillion deficit savings would reduce the deficit as a percentage of the total economy to 3 percent of GDP by the middle of this decade. The deficit is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to surge to an all-time high of $1.5 trillion this year, which would be 9.8 percent of the economy and mark the third consecutive $1 trillion-plus budget gap. The surging deficits reflect the deep 2007-2009 recession, which cut into government tax revenues as millions were thrown out of work and prompted massive government spending to jump-start economic growth and stabilize the banking system. Republicans scored significant victories in the November elections by attacking the soaring deficits while the Obama administration argued that the spending was needed to keep the country from falling into an even deeper economic slump. --- Associated Press writers Jim Kuhnhenn, Darlene Superville and Andrew Taylor contributed to this report.

FBI can obtain phone records without oversight, Justice Dept memo claims

By Nathan Diebenow
Saturday, February 12th, 2011 -- 5:35 pm

Tags: american civil liberties, american civil liberties union, civil liberties union, electronic frontier foundation, general, inspector, law,mcclatchy newspapers, memo, phone

Without court oversight, the nation's top law enforcement agency can obtain domestic records of telephone conversations made to international receivers, the Justice Department claimed recently.

"[The Office of Legal Counsel] agreed with the FBI that under certain circumstances (word or words redacted) allows the FBI to ask for and obtain these records on a voluntary basis from the providers, without legal process or a qualifying emergency," the Justice Department's inspector general said in a recent report by McClatchy Newspapers.

The claim put forth in the document released to McClatchy seemed to indicate that the Obama administration has continued the previous administration's policies.

The Bush administration maintained that the FBI needed such policing powers in order to stop possible terrorism. Critics of the FBI's surveillance program stated that the tactic was frequently applied in abusive manners.

Kevin Bankston, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told McClatchy that the OLC's disclosure that explained its legal position on part of the 1978 federal wiretapping law was a missing puzzle piece.

"Apparently, they've decided that this provision means that your international communications are a privacy-free zone and that they can get records of those communications without any legal process," Bankston said.

Bankston added that the law would still prevent the telecommunication companies from voluntarily giving the FBI their customers' data even upon request.

The Justice Department failed to provide McClatchy with a copy of a memo the newspaper group had originally requested, a move which countered the Obama administration's claim to perform its duties more transparently.

The American Civil Liberties Union told McClatchy that the Justice Department should not withhold the legal reasoning it uses to justify the FBI's authority in gathering citizens' telephone records.

"The law should never be secret," said Michael German, an ACLU spokesperson who is a former FBI agent.

At the time Obama authorized the released four Bush-era interrogation memos previously held secret, he said information contained in them had already been widely reported and would not harm ongoing investigations. Furthermore, the techniques described in them such as waterboarding had ceased.

However, McClatchy noted that information contained in the new yet secret OLC memo was also in the public record. The inspector general added in a report that the FBI broken the law repeatedly as a result of an informal review of the phone surveillance program that the secret memo covered.