Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 of The Constitution of the United States declares in part, that “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;”. The mandate for gold and silver coin applies only to the States of the Union. There is no similar constitutional restriction on the currencies that might be used in Washington DC or the territories since they are not “States” of the Union.
I’ve therefore concluded that the use of Federal Reserve Notes would be at least restricted and probably prohibited within the States of the Union, but would be quite legal within any territory of the United States or Washington DC. This distinction between the constitutional venues of currencies is the cornerstone for my contention that “Texas,” “TX” and even “STATE OF TEXAS” do not signify the State of the Union whose proper name is “The State of Texas,” but instead signify a territory. I.e., it’s lawful to use Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) in the “territory” of TX, but it would be unlawful to use FRNs within “The State of Texas”.
Thus, it might be that the mere use of FRNs would constitute evidence that you had “voluntarily” left your State of the Union to transact business in a fictional territory. Within the State you would have many rights, but no currency. Within the territory you’d have ample access to a fiat currency, but little or no real rights.
The distinction between being within a State of the Union and being in a territory is seen in a comparison of Article 1 of the Constitution (which grants Congress certain limited powers in relation to the States of the Union) and Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2 (which grants Congress unlimited powers over the territories). Thus, within a State of the Union each of people of such State are individual sovereigns. Within a territory, the Congress is sovereign, and the territorial inhabitants are (at best) subjects.
Therefore, I contend that if gov-co can deceive you into inadvertently acting as if you’re in a territory, you will have forfeit your standing to claim individual sovereignty and you’ll be suitable for treatment as a “subject” (or even animal).
I.e., if you used a Zip Code in your mailing address, that would probably be construed as evidence that you regarded your venue as within a territory rather than a State of the Union. Similarly, if you used FRNs, that might be construed to imply that you’d entered into a fictional territory rather than transact in gold and silver within a State of the Union.
I’ve been pretty confident about the approximate accuracy of that analysis for most of a decade.
However, today, one of my readers commented on the death of Tom Gipson (R.I.P. Valiant Liberty) and posted links to an article by Tom and another article by a law professor named “Ebsworth”. Both articles dealt with “maritime,” “admiralty” and/or “international commercial” law.
I haven’t yet read either article, but their common subject matter caused an interesting thought to cross my mind.
Previously, I’ve only thought of the FRN only in relation to the “United States”. I.e., the FRN was apparently prohibited within the States of the Union, but lawful within the territories of the United States. I assumed the FRN only implicated a jurisdiction of a US territory.
However, it crosses my mind that the US dollar has been recognized as the “global reserve currency” since WWII. The vast majority of international trade has been conducted with US dollars over the past 65 years. Thus, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to describe the dollar as the world’s only “international currency”. But would such description be only a metaphor or would it be a fact?
I strongly suspect that until Saddam Hussein started selling Iraqi crude for euros in A.D. 2000 (and thereby threatening the US dollar’s hegemony as the “global reserve currency”), the US dollar was earmarked to become the single global/international currency of the New World Order. If that were to happen, anyone using FRNs anywhere in the world might be presumed to be transacting under the jurisdiction of the global government of the New World Order.
Therefore, I begin to wonder if my earlier analysis of currency venues (States vs US territories) may have been too limited. Maybe the significance of the US dollar/FRN is not that it creates the presumption that we are transacting within a US territory subject to exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress. Maybe, instead of implicating “territorial trade,” the US dollar/FRN implicates international trade.
If so, use of the fiat dollar wouldn’t merely subject us to the territorial and exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress –it might instead subject us to international law (like the “maritime” and/or “admiralty” law researched by Tom Gipson and the “international commercial law” researched by Professor Ebsworth). Perhaps the FRN even implicates the UN’s jurisdiction.
The critical point is that use of FRNs would support the presumption that we had voluntarily left the venue of a State of the Union. But what venue would we be presumed to have entered? A territory of the US? Or a territory of the UN (or some other international jurisdiction)?
It’s just a thought, but is it possible that the FRN’s legal effect is to subject us to an international jurisdiction rather than US territorial jurisdiction?
I look forward to your comments.