Four thoughts on the topic:

 

 

1. Until we cut off the DC criminals' funding, we're wasting our time. So long as they can simply confiscate or PRINT what we must earn, they'll continue to purchase whatever people and power they need while we, at best, can only afford to fight some of their worst violations. ...we stamp out one fire, they crank up their money machine and light 10 more.

 

2. On the issue of withholding funding, it seems to me that secession is the best option. Since many are against this idea, perhaps narrowing it to "economic secession" would work as a compromise. (A compromise that wouldn't weaken our main objective: Restoring the "power of the purse" to the people.)

 

3. The Constitution cannot defend itself. There must be some mechanism by which the PEOPLE can try and convict criminal politicians and bureaucrats. ( Everyone intuitively understands that simply writing a law against "stealing" will not prevent theft in society...they know that laws must be backed with some sort of enforcement apparatus. Why then do we pass laws aimed at preventing crimes in government and expect the laws will somehow enforce themselves? If we don't expect "thieves" in society to police and punish their own theft, how can we expect the most powerful criminals in government to use the enforcement apparatus that THEY CONTROL to police and punish themselves?)

 

4. On jury nullification: It has been argued that the Founders' intent was to make it the right and duty of a jury to "judge of the justice of the law and to hold all laws invalid that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating or resisting the execution of such laws." -Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury

 

To better guarantee this "right and duty," a jury ought to be given a choice of THREE verdicts that it can return in court: Guilty, not guilty, or NOT PUNISHABLE.

This third verdict would render useless the government's practice of passing laws that nobody asked for and few support. It would also provide citizens the ability to stop punishing "crimes" that are no longer considered criminal. (Like refusing to fund or obey an openly criminal and unaccountable government.)

Joe Plummer 5.9.09