Ron Paul: End the Gov't Money Monopoly

This article was picked up from the Liberator Online.

Leave it to Ron Paul! He shocked the Establishment when his bill to audit the Federal Reserve System won majority support in the U.S. House. (Now it's winning substantial Senate support as well.)

He further made abolishing the Fed a major political issue with a bestselling book on the topic and legislation to accomplish that goal.

Now Paul is once again pushing the envelope on monetary policy -- by introducing the boldest and most libertarian monetary reform possible.

On December 9, Paul introduced HR 4248, the Free Competition in Currency Act. This bill would end the government's monopoly on the creation of money. It would allow the private sector to create alternative currencies to compete head-on with the government dollar.

Says Paul: "Allowing for competing currencies will allow market participants to choose a currency that suits their needs, rather than the needs of the government. The prospect of people turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies should provide incentive for Congress to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral.

"Restoring soundness to the dollar will remove the government's ability and incentive to inflate the currency and keep us from launching unconstitutional wars that burden our economy to excess. With a sound currency, everyone is better off, not just those who control the monetary system."

The First National Bank - John Marshall, Hidden Motives and The Necessary and Proper Clause

Chief Justice John Marshall is undoubtedly the most influential man to have ever sat upon The Supreme Court's bench. As first Chief Justice, Marshall established many principles of constitutional interpretation which are followed to this very day. His most infamous, or most legendary depending on where one stands, was his first application of the neccesary and proper clause to the always controversial issue of the national bank.

Article One, section 8, clause 18 states, "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

In applying this clause to the issue of whether a national bank was authorized by the Constitution, Marshall argued in McCulloch v. Maryland that since "necessary" does not usually mean necessary as the dictionary defines it, i.e. required, but rather is often used as merely "convenient" or appropriate, the federal Government was in fact authorized to charter a national bank regardless of whether the constitution expressly authorized this power or not.

This is of course common history to any one familiar with the law - but what is not as familiar to most is Chief Justice Marshall's personal ties with the National Bank - Marshall, prior to the case, was a private shareholder in the bank and thus held a vested interest in the case's outcome. But rather than excuse himself from the decision he chose to transfer his shares in the bank to his two sons and proceed with preciding over the matter that would dictate the size and scope of the federal of government for centuries to come.

The question thus arises whether the entire contemporary system of Constitutional law is tainted with the poisons of prejudice. Is it possible that the federal government's perpetual growth and corruption finds its roots in corrupt men seeking profit through government power? Furthermore, could such corruption have been avoided by simply interpreting the word necessary as actually defined, i.e. absolutely essential? Has the Constitution been lost, not to an ideology, but to corrupt men willing to bend the law to their benefit? And if so, how has this corruption managed to secure the degree of legitimacy which men such as Marshall possess? These are the questions which must be addressed if American law is to ever be Constitutional again.

NAFTA Tribunals and Federal District Court Review

Since its enactment in the early 1990s, The North American Free Trade Agreement ("NAFTA") has been subject to strict criicisms from various political camps, including the left, the right and the liberatarians. Whether it is its alleged intention of circumenventing American soveriegnty, its negative effects on the American labor market, or its restrict effect on state governments, the NAFTA is despised by most anyone who considers themselves a political skeptic. And such criticisms are not without good reason as the NAFTA's stated purpose and legal effect, if actually obeyed by its members, is to restrict the governments involved to thus facilitate a system of free markets and "hands off" government policies. Of course, since neither nation truly endorses capitalism as a governing system, the NAFTA includes plenty of provisions that allow for government intervention, but nonetheless, such exceptions have not stopped NAFTA secret tribunals from bringing about legal remedies to those companies damaged by unreasonable interventionist policies of member governments.

Cases abound in which governments have been ordered by NAFTA tribunals to pay millions of dollars in damages to corporations. Many people reject this as an evil not to be tolerated, but is it any less more evil than protections against eminent domain? Of course not - at least on its face.

But people's main concern over the NAFTA is the subversive effect that the NAFTA may have on their nations' sovereignty. And if history is an accurate guide, then it is likely that in the name of trade facilitation local sovereignty will be forced to stand down in accordance with centralizing authority. See the United States. However, it is also true that without a crisis such as war, economic collapse, or, the new alleged crisis, global warming, it is unlikely that any sovereign power will lose their power without a fight. Nonetheless, it is clear that it is not the war, but the legal developments which precede war that decide a sovereign people's destiny. Such is the basis for why every tyrant, regardless of his tenor or specific brand of tyranny, has gone through the trouble of adopting a philosophical and legal rationale for his actions, for without this intellectual foundation his cause would be seen as a mere force of arms, an evil to be rebelled against. Thus, it is the legal developments and philosophical principles being laid down now that must be watched in order to fully appreciate where it is that we as a people are going.

One such development is a recent piece of litigation featuring a Canadian company, Apotex, who brought suit in U.S. Federal District Court seeking a declaratory judgment in regards to a pending patent. Unfortunately for Apotex, neither the District Court not the Circuit Court believed Apotex to have claim and thus both courts refused to hear their case. Apotex then appealed to the Supreme Court who then denied cert.

In response, Apotex brought action under the NAFTA, challenging all three court decisions as a misapplication of U.S. law, NAFTA expropriation, discrimination and a
violation of its NAFTA rights to a “minimum standard of treatment.” Effectively, what this amounts to is that Apotex is requesting that the NAFTA require the United States government to pay money damages for the Federal Court's refusal to interpret American law properly. Thus, for NAFTA to grant such a ruling, not only will it have to hold the Federal Government to have breached NAFTA, but also tht Federal Courts failed to interpret America law properly. If the NAFTA tribunal was to make such a ruling this would amount to nothing short of a new highest court in the United States, one that is appointed by a secret and non-elected organization of men. Luckily, the Federal Government has assured the public that it will defend this case vigorously, thereby protecting the sanctity of the American judicial process.

But isn't it enough that NAFTA can review these matters at all? If today NAFTA rejects Apotex's claim, will it not already be established that private actors can seek judicial review of Federal Court decisions in a new international tribunal system?

APOTEX INC. v. PFIZER, INC.547 U.S. 1126 (2006)(cert. denied); Apotex Inc. v. United States of America (First Notice of Arbitration); DOMTAR INC. v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Relevnt documents can be found at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/84142.pdf
and,
http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/disp-diff/usa.aspx?lang=en

Excerpt from the "Real Lincoln" - Thomas J. DiLorenzo

"This expansion of state and local government provided for tax-funded government schooling, influenced heavily by the federal government. Consequently, genrations of southerners (and Northerners) have been taught a poltically correct version of history (and of many other subjects) in the federalized, government-run schools. This is one reason why most Americans are completely unaware of the long, distinguished history of the right of secession in America. To this day, the government-run school system reiterates Lincoln's "spectacular lie" that secession is an act of treason. Thousands of school districts in dozens of states require students to recite a pledge of allegiance to the central government, "one nation, indivisible..." (Interestingly, the Pledge of Allegiance was written by the early-twentieth century writer Walter Bellamy, an avowed socialist and outspoken advocate of centralized government power.)"

"The biggest item on the agenda of the Republicans was government subsidies to the corporations that bankrolled the Republican Party. The Confederate Constitution outlawed such corporate welfare, but with the defeat of the Confederate armies there was no longer any opposition to it."

Indymac Bank F.S.B. v Yano‐Horoski

In the following case a N.Y. state Judge in Suffolk, Long Island rules that where a creditor attempts to enforce payment of a debt lawfully owed to him, he engages in conduct so offensive that the law of equity demands the debt be cancelled in its entirety.

In Indymac Bank F.S.B. v. Yano-Horoski, a New York State judge ordered a plaintiff/bank/creditor to partake in settlement discussions with the defendant, debtor, with the stated purpose of avoiding full foreclosure on the house. Unfortunately for the judge’s sense of self-righteousness, Plaintiff refused to renegotiate the mortgage, instead preferring to reclaim its lawfully owned house.

The opinion is so intriguing it should be allowed to speak for itself.

“The Court, over the course of some six substantive appearances in seven months, has been afforded more than ample opportunity to assess the demeanor, credibility and general state of relevant affairs of Defendant and Plaintiff. Although not actually relevant to the disposition of this matter, the Court is constrained to note that Defendant is afflicted with multiple health problems which outwardly manifest in her experiencing great difficulty in ambulation, necessitating the use of mechanical supports. Moreover, Defendant’s husband, Mr. Gregory Horoski, suffers from a myriad of serious medical conditions which greatly impede most aspects of his daily existence. Nonetheless, both of these persons, together with their adult daughter who resides with them and who is substantially and gainfully employed, receive income which they are more than willing to commit, in good faith, toward repayment of the debt to Plaintiff and indeed, despite their physical challenges, they have appeared at each and every scheduled conference before this Court. At each appearance, they have assiduously attempted to resolve this controversy in an amicable fashion, only to be callously and arbitrarily turned away by Plaintiff. This has been so even in spite of the Court’s continuing albeit futile endeavors at brokering a settlement.

As a relevant aside, the scenario presented here raises the specter of a much greater social problem, that of housing those persons whose homes are foreclosed and who are thereafter dispossessed. It is certainly no secret that Suffolk County is in the yawning abyss of a deep mortgage and housing crisis with foreclosure filings at a record high rate and a corresponding paucity of emergency housing. While foreclosure and its attendant eviction are clearly the inevitable (and in some cases, proper) result in a number of these situations, the Court is persuaded that this need not be the case here. In this matter, Defendant is plainly willing to make arrangements for repayment and both her husband and daughter are likewise willing to allocate their respective incomes in order to reach the same end. Were Plaintiff amenable, she would presumably continue to maintain the property’s physical plant, pay taxes thereon and the property would retain or perhaps increase its market value. Plaintiff would receive a regular income stream, albeit with a reduced rate of interest and without sustaining a loss of several hundred thousand dollars. In addition, no neighborhood blight would occur from the boarding of the property after foreclosure which would, in turn, avert problems of litter, dumping, vagrancy and vandalism as well as a corresponding decline in the property values in the immediate area. In short, a loan modification would result in a proverbial “win‐win” for all parties involved. To do otherwise would result in virtually certain undomiciled status for two physically unhealthy persons and their daughter, leading to an additional level of problems, both for them and for society.”

“…However, it is true with equal force and effect that equity must not and cannot slavishly and blindly follow the law, Hedges v. Dixon County 150 US 182, 192 (1893). Moreover, as succinctly decreed by our Court of Appeals in the matter of Noyes v. [*5]Anderson 124 NY 175 (1890) “A party having a legal right shall not be permitted to avail himself of it for the purposes of injustice or oppression…” 124 NY at 179

“Thus, where a party acts in a manner that is offensive to good conscience and justice, he will be completely without recourse in a court of equity, regardless of what his legal rights may be, Eastman Kodak Co. v. Schwartz 133 NYS2d 908 (Sup. Ct., New York County, 1954), York v. Searles 97 AD 331, 90 NYS 37 (2nd Dept. 1904), aff’d 189 NY 573, 82 NE 1134 (1907).”

The court then proceeds to cancel the debt owed on the basis that plaintiff came before the court without clean hands because he refused to waive his right to a debt owed to him. Indymac Bank F.S.B. v Yano‐Horoski is thus a great example of present day perception of natural rights.

As an aside, the internet show FREEDOM WATCH at Foxnews.com tipped off DiscoveringFreedomNow.com to the Indymac Bank F.S.B. v. Yano-Horoski decision. Judge Napolitano, host of Freedom Watch, was of the opinion that this case will inevitably be reversed by an appellate court, but we'll follow the case just to be sure.

Excerpt from the "Real Lincoln" - Thomas J. DiLorenzo

WASTE, FRAUD, AND CORRUPTION

"Beginning with Alexander Hamilton, the proponents of goverment subsidiesfor iternal improveents argue that private capital markets would not provde sufficient resources. But economist Danie Klein has shown that prvately funded roads proliferated throughout the early nineteenth century. As early as 1800 there were sixty-nine privately financed road-building compaies in the United Sttes. Over the next forty years more than 400 private roads (which were called "turnpikes") were built.

Railrod entrpreneur James J. Hill even built a transcontinental rilroad (the Great Northern) without a dime of government subsidy; New Hampsire and Vermont gave no aid at all to railroads, yet privately built lines crisscrossed the two states; and the Mormons built severl privately funded railroads in Uth. After the Illinois debacle of 1837, Chicago went on to becme the railroadcenter of the United States without any government subsidies.

Local merchants and town residents invested eaviy in private road and canal building because they understood that it would be helpful to their businesses and their comuities. There were ignificant social pressures to invest fr the good of the community. State and local governments did get nvolved in subsidizing internal improvements, howevever; and in virtually every single case the result was a financial calamity not unlike the ebacle in Illinois in the late 1830s.

Ohio was on of the most active states in subsidizing internal imprvements,but there was so much waste and corruption, writers economic historian Carter Goodrich, that Ohio "stood as one of the chief examples of the revulsion of feeling against gvoernmental promotion of internal imprvement." In 1851 Ohio followed Illinois in amendig its constitution to prohibit government subsidies to priate corporations. In 185 Ohio followed Ilinois in amnding its constitution to prohibit governmen subsidies to private corporations. Indiana and Michigan were even less sucessful than Illinois and Ohio, nd in three short years, after spending millions on canal-and road-building projects, the projects were all banrupt. These states also amended their consitutions to prohibit government subsidies for internal imprvements.

Subsdized internal improvements were such a universal disaster that when Wisconsin and Minnesota entered the Union in 1848 and 1858, their state constitutions prohibited grants and even loans to private companies. In Iowa the state courts held tht locl government aid to rivate companies was unconstitutional. By 1961 state subsidies for internal improvements were forbidden by constitutional amendment in Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Minnesota, Iowa, Kentucky, Kansas, California, and Oreogon. West Virginia, Nevada, and Nebraska entere te Union in the 1860s with similar prohibitions. By 1875 Massachusetts was the only state that still permitted state subsidies for internal improvements.

What this all suggests is that the Hamilton/Clay/Lincoln agenda of government subsidies for road building and railroad corporations was wildly unpopular throughout the nation and ad been an abysmal failure in ever instance. None of these experiences seem to have fazed Lincoln, however, for he continued to promote even biggr and more grandiose internal improvemnt projects throughout his political career. Indeed even during the first year of the war, when the fortunes of the Federal army were on the declie, the Lincoln administration diverted millions of dollars torailroad-building projects in Californi.

Most of the opposition to internal improvement subsdies at the federal level of government came from Southerners, who were "the most consistent opponents of federal aid," wroter Carter Goodrich. Southerners were so opposed to it,in fact, that the Confederate Constitution of 1861, like most state constitutions at the time, outlawed internal improvement subsidies. Article I, Section 8,Claus 3 of the Confederate Constitution stated that "neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed o elegate power to Congress to appropriate money forany internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce."

This prohibition, and the opposition to protectionist tariffs and a nationalized banking system, was ended once and for all during the first two years of the Lincoln administrations."

-Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln

Defense of Necessity

In American criminal law, there exists a doctrine of necessity. Also termed necessity defense, essentially this doctrine holds that necessity may justify or exculpate a defendant. (Necessity and self-defense can be combined depending upon the specific state's code.) Defendants raising this defense argue that their crimes were not in fact criminal in nature because their conduct was necessary to prevent a greater harm. An example normally given is that of a man lost in the woods during a ferocious snowstorm who breaks into another's home in order to seek shelter, warmth and food. The law has recognized that trespassing onto another's property was necessary in order to save the man's life. (Of course, even necessary actions must be confined and narrowly tailored to prevent the greater harm. For instance in the above example, the lost man could not steal, vandalize or otherwise damage the house in which he sought refuge.) Similar necessity defenses exist in England, Canada, Sweden, Australia and others.

The Kansas state court may soon be contending with the necessity doctrine according to the Associated Press of November 24, 2009. Recall the murder of George Tiller, a physician who owned and operated an abortion clinic in Kansas which provided late-term abortions, by the self-proclaimed anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder. Recent public statements by Roeder's attorney indicate that the defense may be planning to bring a necessity defense into the courtroom.

Specifically, Roeder's attorney reported that his client has an "absolute right" to present a defense that argues the killing was justified to stop abortion. The prosecution filed a motion to preclude the defense from raising necessity and a hearing on the issue is scheduled for December 22, 2009. To bolster their argument, the prosecution cited a criminal trespass case in which the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that to allow the personal beliefs of a person to justify criminal activity to stop a law-abiding citizen from exercising rights would "not only lead to chaos but would be tantamount to sanctioning anarchy." Roeder's public defenders responded that his case differs because a trespass at an abortion clinic is just a potential temporary interruption of the practice of abortion. They stated,"It is inconclusive whether the lives of the unborn were spared as a result of the act of criminal trespass. In the instant case, the result of the alleged murder resulted in the termination of abortions being performed in the City of Wichita by the victim, Dr. George Tiller." More importantly, the defense attorneys noted the Supreme Court also said that whether "the necessity defense should be adopted or recognized in Kansas may best be left for another day." Therefore, it appears the question concerning the viability of a necessity defense in a Kansas courtoom remains unanswered.

Abortion and the Law

The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.

- Ayn Rand

“We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion.”[1]
The above quoted sentiment is expressed in the second paragraph of Justice Blackmum’s opinion in the 1973 seminal court case Roe v. Wade. Roe, deemed by some Americans as the Supreme Court’s landmark decision to safeguard women’s rights and regarded by others as the Court’s most dangerous opinion since the Dred Scott decision, is undoubtedly one of the most controversial court decisions to ever come from the bench of the United States Supreme Court. Roe and its progeny have served to foment the intensely emotional political and social commentaries regarding one of the most divisive subjects in history: abortion. Because of its complexities and the emotional responses with which Americans respond to debate of abortion, our judgments have been clouded and our reason obscured and replaced with ardent feelings instead of reasoned logic. But given the numerous venues of American society abortion touches, we can no longer allow emotion to rule the day or the debate. Abortion is spoken of from both the pulpit and the presidential podium, it influences both political and personal decisions, it is used (inappropriately) as a litmus test for dividing the Right from the Left, to have one is an extremely difficult choice to make and to debate it from a logical and reasonable point of view is an extremely difficult feat to accomplish.
In short, abortion is a contentious subject about which it has been extraordinarily difficult, bordering on the impossible, to have a reasonable conversation. The need for such a conversation is urgently needed once we examine the current state of abortion and abortion dialogue in the United States. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit research and policy institute upon which both pro-choice and pro-life groups rely for statistical information, 1.21 million abortions were performed in 2005 (the most recent year available.)[2] Annually, of the women who elect to have an abortion, 47% of them are making the choice for the second time.[3] Additionally, where a candidate stands regarding abortion is always a top priority for voters in presidential races, representative races and judicial nominations. There are hundreds of pro-life and pro-choice groups including NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Action League), Emily’s List, NRLC (National Right to Life Committee), Democrats For Life of America, National Organization for Women and the Pro-Life Action League just to name a few. As evidenced by their catch phrases “life” and “choice”, both sides of the issue attempt to build their platforms upon one simple word. However, by siphoning away the complexities that surround the abortion issue, both sides of the debate have only exacerbated the problems involved with the discussion and resolution of the issue.
In order to effect change regarding abortion, the pro-life and pro-choice groups have engaged in various campaigns, made loud and occasionally violent demonstrations, lobbied Congress and the court system, marched in parades, handed out pamphlets, made speeches, planned conventions and accomplished nothing. By forcing Americans to choose between the ideals the groups have hijacked, “life” or “choice”, both groups are doing an enormous disservice to those who honestly desire to put an end to this debate as well as this practice.
I do not wish to mislead the reader. I am pro-life. I do not condone or approve of the abortion procedure in any situation. However, I align myself with the pro-life community’s in goal only – I completely disagree with their methods. Currently, the vast majority of the rhetoric the pro-life community utilizes revolves around a theological belief that life begins at conception, that abortion is murder and hence abortion is wrong. The inefficacy of their approach speaks for itself. Millions of abortions are performed in this country every year. It is time for a new approach to abortion study and discourse, an approach that is centered on reason, logic and yes, personal choice.

[1] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113.
[2] http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
[3] http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Introduction to The Federal Reserve Cases

Responding to the financial meltdown of last fall, the Federal Reserve initiated a wide array of financial “bailout” programs, in which undisclosed amounts of assets were handed out to failing companies throughout the United States and abroad. Following these bailouts, outrage took hold of the American people at large. From Congressmen to taxi-cab drivers, all of a sudden people had become acutely aware of the man Ben Bernanke and his unwillingness to answer those questions that most concerned the American people, namely, who were the beneficiaries of the new corporate welfare state being run by the Fed? Thus, a political movement took hold demanding transparency from the Fed – in Congress this came in the form of an “Audit the Fed Bill” - in the Courts it took the form of two separate law suits requesting disclosure of the Fed’s loan programs under The Freedom of Information Act.

The first suit was brought by Fox news and was an utter failure - more on this in a later article.
-Fox News Network, LLC v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Luckily, however, the second suit was an enormous success which resulted in a court order requiring the Fed to disclose information regarding who the beneficiaries of the emergencies loan programs were and what the terms of these programs were.

-Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

But despite this success, it must be noted that the Bloomberg decision did not stem from any judicial or legal policy that was anti-Fed secrecy or authority. Instead, the Court’s decision hinged on a technicality concerning whether the Fed fell under the definition of “agency” as set forth by the Freedom of Information Act. Therefore, though the District Court decision was a victory for those who wish to shine light on the inner workings of the Federal Reserve, it would be erroneous to consider the N.Y. District Court’s decision as any kind of moral or political victory for the liberty and sound money movement. Simply put, the decision was one of statutory interpretation and not policy consideration. In fact, where the court did consider policy, the court held secrecy and non-disclosure to be well within the law - such was the nature of the Fox decision.

What this all means is that although Bloomberg’s victory presents a very real possibility that both the Fed and those who profit from its corporate welfare system may end up being held accountable for their actions, recent developments indicate a roughly equivalent possibility that Bloomberg will be reversed by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. To evaluate the validity of the Fed’s appeal the legal arguments included within the Fed’s assignment of error must be closely analyzed. This analysis will be featured in the next Federal Reserve entry.

The Complaint and Legal Argument for Flynn v. United States (Bone marrow ban challenge)

Listed below is link for a copy of the complaint for Flynn v. United States. The complaint establishes jurisdiction, venue, and more importantly for the purposes of this log, the identification of the plaintiff partis and the nature of bone marrow. This document lays down the basis for the plaintiffs' right to sue and establishes the first factual allegations in support of why the ban on incentive based systems in regards to procuring life saving bone marrow.

http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/economic_liberty/NOTA/ij-complaint_nota.pdf

We are really looking forward to seeing the U.S.'s response. Who knows? Maybe they'll let the clause fall without a fight! Afterall, it would be the reasonable thing to do. But liberty probably won't be that lucky, as government tends to cling to any power it can.

Updates to follow as soon as the government replies.

A Primer - Discovering Freedom Now

Welcome to DiscoveringFreedomNow.blogspot.com. The following is a brief introduction to what we here at DiscoveringFreedomNow.blogspot.com are all about.

Each and every day attorneys enter Courtrooms in an effort to secure their client’s rights. From these competing forces emerges a whole, sometimes integrated, sometimes not, that is the United States Law. Yet, many people, even those intrigued by everything political, have little to no interest in Courtroom developments. This blog holds their indifference to be, not only unwarranted, but also detrimental to freedom itself. Thus, DiscoveringFreedomNow.blogspot.com seeks to illuminate both the intrigue and long term consequences of the most significant Constitutional conflicts as they develop.

Therefore, this blog invites you to explore whatever it is that may interest you -whether it is equality before the law, monetary policy, freedom to trade, or any of the other numerous social issues that are decided by the Courts – we here at DiscoveringFreedomNow.blogspot.com seek to provide the necessary guidance and up to date information for any mind thirsty for knowledge to find its satisfaction.
To better assist in that process, the entries are categorized by whether the case is decided or pending, but for those seeking to find specific cases or areas of law, feel free to use the search function as key terms are used consistently through all related entries.

As pending cases develop, updates will be provided regularly in order to provide insight into both the essential Constitutional principles established and the finer nuances of the judicial process. The latter being a service that many Americans are in need of as all too often the supreme power of the judicial branch of government is forgotten, despite its heavily influential force. Our hope is to reassert the Court’s and, more importantly, the law’s prominent role in American social ordering. Hopefully, these efforts will inspire others to consider the fundamental principles of our society and Constitution, and, in turn, eventually bring them to a point where they, like us, begin the process of Discovering Freedom Now.



“The law no passion can disturb. Tis void of desire and fear, lust and anger. Tis mens sine affect, written reason, retaining some measure of the divine perfection. It does not enjoin that which pleases a weak, frail man, but, without any regard to persons, commands that which is good and punishes evil in all, whether rich or poor, high or low. Tis deaf, inexorable, inflexible. On the one hand it is inexorable to the cries and lamentations of the prisoners; on the other it is deaf, deaf as an adder, to the clamors of the popular.”

-President John Adams, Argument in Defense of the British Soldiers Involved in the Boston Massacre Trials, (December 4, 1770).

Freedom to Live - The Fight for Bone Marrow

The case is Flynn v. Holder. And it has potential to be the grand slam team Liberty has been waiting for.

The Institute for Justice (“IJ”) recently brought suit challenging the constitutionality of the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA), an act prohibiting any person from knowingly acquiring, receiving, or otherwise transferring any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation – included within the ban is bone marrow. According to IJ’s complaint, “[t]his constitutional challenge is about an arbitrary law that criminalizes a promising effort to save lives. Every year, tens of thousands of Americans – many of whom are just children –learn they have a deadly blood disease such as leukemia. Often, their only hope is a bone marrow transplant from a stranger, but there is a desperate shortage of unrelated marrow donors…”

According to IJ, “[t]he National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) of 1984 treats compensation for marrow donors as though it were black-market organ sales. Under NOTA, giving a college student a scholarship or a new homeowner a mortgage payment for donating marrow would land everyone—doctors, nurses, donors and patients—in federal prison for up to five years.” IJ argues that this treatment of bone marrow is a violation of the equal protection clause because, unlike organs which are non-renewable, bone marrow renews itself quickly, less than a few weeks in fact. Thus, IJ claims that the law should treat bone marrow as other renewable cells, such as blood, for which compensation for donations are allowed. Such a change in legal regime would allow for many people in desperate need of donation to have better opportunity of finding the bone marrow that will save their lives – now, the question remains – what will opposing counsel, Attorney General Eric Holder, will have to say about IJ’s challenge? As of yet, no reply.

So why should we care about this case - other than the fact that thousands of human lives, including those of the children represented by IJ, are hanging in the balance? Because, like so many other legal disputes, though the case will be decided upon details of technical disputes concerning the nature of the bone marrow and the Act in question, what will ultimately be decided is whether the law will allow society to prohibit the promotion of human life in order to secure a moral code that stands in direct opposition to human progress.
It is undisputed that allowing free-market incentives into the human organ, tissue and cell industry will lead to an increase in supply of these much needed life-saving materials. Yet, many people, including Judges, are reluctant to allow the market and into this area of human life because they believe that doing so will degrade the value of human life. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth, as the true devaluer of human life is the person willing to allow human beings to die so that others may maintain some vague and unsupported definition of human sanctity.

What drives people to hold such outlandish positions is their strong distaste for private property and self-interested motivations generally - see the definition of the word "selfish".

They believe such notions to be an evil, tolerated for nothing other than the utilitarian purpose it serves. They hold that to link the evil force of private property with the human body degrades the human soul itself, and might possibly jeopardize all of humanity in the process. One can only imagine what goes on in their minds – perhaps they see a future in which human beings are farmed and their bodies harvest – think the ISLAND, but without the beauty. But private property and free-markets would never allow for such a fate, for private property presupposes that every human being has a right to life. How could one believe that by creating a more thorough and fully integrated right to life society will be dehumanized?

The truth is that in allowing human beings to voluntarily cooperate, i.e. in allowing each and every human being to live by the dictates of his own conscience, all human beings' lives are enhanced. Thus, so long as the state remains within its proper sphere, only acting as the protector of individual rights, then the dehumanization that many fear to be linked to the mrket...will, to the contrary, never occur.

Unfortunately, the benefits of private property are rarely sufficient to persuade the anti-capitalist of the value of a free-market solution. This position itself should tell you something about the anti-property breed. But if it doesn’t, then allow me to spell it out for you…though they speak of common property, of human sanctity, of the common good, the reality is that they have no interest in bettering Man’s state. Rather, their wish is nothing other than to maintain the social order that they believe is proper. Theirs is a society of rulers and ruled. And because of their position, because of their belief that others can be treated as means to the end that is their "Great Society" they are willing to do just about anything to bring it about, including allowing human beings to die where their continued living requires a legal recognition of the awe-inspiring good that the free-market unleashes.

Thus, though the legal dispute soon to be litigated in Flynn v. Holder will likely focus on issues possibly mundane to the typical political follow, the philosophical and political implications of this decision and others like it, will reach far beyond any political quibble of the present moment - for a political issue is fast forgotten, but a legal decision remains with us forever.

Such is the nature of our legal system. Because of this I will be following this case with a keen eye, keeping those who are interested in its development updated as to who it is that is winning, why it is that they are doing so, and what it means to both the parties involved and we, the American citizenry.

These issues may become complex, but I assure you that understanding them will lead to a deeper appreciation of the Constitution, the law, and the American Republic itself.

So, until next time, this is John Callan reminding you to make the most of your moment.

The Big Three

Just thought I'd let you know what it is that I intend to write about next. You see, my intellectual interests do not lie in the events unfolding in politics today - such events are for the political commentators of the world, not the philosophers. I of course take interest in these events as they do concern my daily life, but if the world is going to change, if human beings are going to allow each other to live freely, than it is the roots of collectivism which must be grasped, not its weeds. Thus, over the next few weeks I am going to address Supreme Court doctrine, i.e. Constitutional law, in respect to the three most fundamental acts of enslavement perpetrated against the American people:

1. The Draft
2. The Income Tax
3. Compulsory Schooling

I am not sure how, or even whether, these issues were ever litigated, but my intuition tells me that Americans would never surrender to such atrocities. And I intend to make those Americans stories known to any person willing to listen.

To be continued...

America: what is and what could be

Be a Light unto Yourself

That which is at rest is easy to grasp.
That which has not yet come about is easy to plan for.
That which is fragile is easily broken.
That which is minute is easily scattered.
Handle things before they arise.
Manage affairs before they are in a mess.

-Lao Tzu

Though I assured myself that this blog's energies would be dedicated to my thoughts on legal theory and juris prudence, since a world of darkness fast approaches, I feel myself obliged to offer light for any wanderer who may happen upon this place.

Materially speaking, the darkness will show itself as a dollar destroyed, a standard of living declined and a government's grip tightened. To protect one's self from this flood of financial ruin, one must build an ark of financial security. This ark should be made of metals free from government whim (THE GOLD STANDARD!) and ownership interests in companies offering goods and services which people truly value. Thus, liquidate dollars before the nations of the world do. Store value outside the U.S. via foreign investment, both in metals and fundamentally sound companies. And, most importantly, cultivate a steady and focused mind.

Though these measures may seem miniscule, in the end they may be the very acts which secure one's livelihood, perhaps even one's life, when tyranny's darkness falls upon us.

Marc Faber, Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers - Masters of wealth creation - Google them and Master the way.

A Remeberance of things past - The Fifth Amendment

"From that day it was the boast of the people that their Federal government was the freest and most limited government that had ever existed. That while it possessed powers necessary for protection against foreign and domestic attack, it contained none by which individual rights could be destroyed without process of law or just compensation."

-Mr. Potter, 1870, The Legal Tender Cases

"Three generations of Imbeciles are enough." - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

I started this blog with the idea that man is an end in himself. Eventually, I will come back to why this assertion is true and why it is so important, but for now I’d like to follow my own curiosity for a while. Thus, the majority of my articles from this point forward will consider Supreme Court decisions and how they relate to the fundamental premise of man as an end in himself.

For readers unfamiliar with the American legal system it may be shocking to learn that in almost all respects Americans, from the perspective of the Courts, are considered an expendable means to the end that is the collective. Of course, I could be wrong that people would be shocked about this. Maybe they are aware of the collectivist principles that serve as the backbone of our legal system. But I doubt it...because I am always hearing people speak of things like rights and freedoms and about how they have them. Unfortunately, beliefs such as these are mere delusions, but enough of that! Let’s get to the judicial opinion of the day…the real meat and potatoes!

You’ve heard of the Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. He is a pretty big name on the legal scene: wrote the Common Law, gave us the “Clear and Present Danger” and was one of the first champions of the legal realist school of thought. Progressives champion Justice Holmes as a true advocate of freedom, and he is considered by most academics to be a pivotal leader of the great social changes of the early 20th century. However, leaving aside his more famous opinions for now, I'd like to focus on a case that I have yet to hear discussed in the classroom. This decision, authored by Justice Holmes, fully discloses the Progressive’s view of man in relation to the whole.

Justice Holmes, delivering the opinion of the Court in Buck v. Bell (274 U.S. 200), held, “We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 25 S. Ct. 358, 49 L. Ed. 643, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

There you have it folks – We can sacrifice you in war. We can vaccinate you against your will. And if we, the people/state, believe that you are not fit for reproduction, we can certainly cut your Fallopian tubes. Due process you say? Yes, of course you have due process, but there is no such thing as an absolute right, and anyway, the due process clause creates no substantive right. Actually, the due process clause only guarantees that the government follow a proper procedural method prior to seizing your life, liberty or property. Thus, if the experts of a legal authorized administrative body believe it to be in the best interest of the public to prevent certain people from reproducing, this court will not stand in their way. This was Holmes’ judicial restraint in action – a beautiful thing when democracy has its day, no?

There is only one more point of interest regarding Buck v. Bell that I'd like to point out. Where an individual’s right to life, liberty, or property is infringed upon by government power it has to put forward an argument for why such infringement is necessary. Usually, in most cases, the public good is economic prosperity for all, prevention of bankruptcy of the nation, or the health and safety of an entire class of people. In Buck v. Bell, however, the public good cited was the preemptive war on crime and poverty. In other words, the experts had decided that where there are three generations of “imbeciles” it is certain that the next child will be an imbecile as well. Thus, the state argued, we should be legally authorized to stop that generation from coming into being. If this isn’t a legal precedent justifying governmental practice of eugenics, then I don’t know what is.

Buck v. Bell has yet to be reversed.

So, was man an end in himself in this case? Let's see. Holmes argues that the cost of policing and providing welfare for the incompetent weighs heavy on the state. Thus, the state should be free to reduce that cost. Nope! Man is a means to the end that is the collective good (or social cost). This precedent, and many others like it, should make people think twice about a public healthcare system. Perhaps, fifty years from now the majority opinion will read "three generations of early age cancer is enough."

Step One - Break Free

Man is an end in himself. More to follow.