All are in agreement that our economy is suffering. But, why did this happen and how can we return it to stable ground? We explore 10+ clauses from the Constitution and quotes from the founding fathers that help us see that they understood very clearly the basic principles of economic freedom and enshrined them into our Constitution to ensure our economy, and therefore our nation, would remain strong and vibrant.
Male Speaker: All right guys, welcome to Economics in the Constitution. This is the 7th lecture in the constitution series that I do. So, glad you’re here. We’re going to talk about some things that I think is important. I don’t think there’s any real doubt or any dispute about the state of our economy. It’s in the tanks, there’s some big challenges ahead of us. What we’re going to try to discover today like we do in all the other presentations, what does the constitution have to say about this topic? Because the constitution as I claim has the answers. They’re there. We don’t need to look other places. We need to look to the constitution and follow it and that’s how we’re going to get the answers to get our economy back on track.
So, let’s start out with a good quote here. It’s a funny one. It’s said in [inaudible] [00:00:52] obviously but it’s actually quite accurate. Ronald Reagan says, government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases. If it moves, tax it. [00:01:00] If it keeps moving, regulate it and if it’s not moving, subsidize it. Obviously that’s said as a joke but it’s actually very, very true. That’s how government views the economy, don’t they? We need to get involved somehow a way or another. If it’s not working or if it is working, we’ve got to inject ourselves into the economy, and that’s the problem, isn’t it?
There’s a famous economist named Thomas Sowell, this guy is really good. He says the first lesson of economics is scarcity. There’s never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. That’s the idea, right? If there’s abundance of resources, you don’t have to worry about it but the scarcity, that’s the first lesson of economics. And he follows that up saying, the first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics. Look, you just give me enough power, enough rules, enough regulations, I can make it so there’s no longer scarce resources. Well, the fact of the matter is in economics, there is a scarcity of resources. That’s an economic fact. That’s a natural law fact. It’s funny how he says it. First lesson of politics says disregard the first lesson of economics, [00:02:00] which obviously can’t be done.
I like to start the presentation with some definitions. The first definition is what’s economics in the first place? The standard textbook definition is the management f the scarce resources of an organized system in order to maximize benefits. It pretty much encompasses what economics is all about. You’re managing scarce resources and for the purpose of maximizing your benefits, using those resources efficiently as possible.
The next definition to get clear on our heads is what is wealth, what’s wealth? It’s a really interesting questions, isn’t it? But it comes down to I think one way to look at this, it’s kind of a different way of looking at it is wealth equals productivity. That’s what wealth is. Wealth is being productive because the result of productivity is wealth. Now, a lot of people say wealth is simply a stack of paper currency, is that true? No, we just learned about in our previous presentation, money in the constitution, a stack of paper currency is simple a stack of paper, isn’t it? So, wealth is not a stack of paper currency. Wealth is productivity.
[00:03:00] Now, piggybacking on that idea that wealth is productivity, let’s look at this slide. In and of itself, the question is, does government produce anything? Right, if wealth is productivity, does government produce anything, in and of itself? No, they don’t produce a single thing. All they do is redistribute the wealth of those citizens and people who are part of the government, who pay taxes to the government. They don’t produce anything in and of themselves. So, if the answer to that question is no, then the follow-up is, therefore can government create wealth? No, they don’t produce anything so they can’t create wealth. All they do is use the wealth of their citizens to provide goods and services that hopefully, theoretically nowadays is simply to protect those citizens, to protect their rights.
The government doesn’t produce anything, therefore government can’t produce wealth. And that’s the folly of the very basic level, very many ideas and governmental agencies is, “Oh, we can produce wealth. We can manage the economy.” Government doesn’t manage the economy. Government doesn’t produce wealth. That’s not their job.
Okay, now the third term [00:04:00] we’re going to discuss is capital, what’s capital? That’s a term that’s used a lot in economics classes. Capital is the means of production. It’s the means to produce wealth, your labor, your national resources, your land, your property, your equipment, that’s what capital is. It’s the means to produce the wealth. It’s the way that you make wealth. Now, if capital is the means to produce and to create wealth, then all systems are based on capitalism. You can’t produce anything without capital, can you? You have to have land or labor resources to do so. So, all systems, all economic systems are capitalistic in nature. You have to have capital, they have to have the resources in order to do that.
The difference between economic systems such as the free market, socialism and communism likes in ownership of the capital. Decisions about what to produce, how much and at what price are different in each economic system in the free market, private individuals make that choice. In socialism and communism, the state and the government make those choices. And that’s the big difference, [00:05:00] is the ownership of that capital who makes those decisions. So, that’s capital. Now, summing it up in just one concise statement, I don’t know if you’ve heard of Ludwig Von Mises. Have you heard of Austrian economics? That’s kind of a new word that’s coming out lately, Austrian economics. The founder of economics is this man named Ludwig Von Mises, great, great economist and understands things.
Here’s what he said, and I think it’s probably the best definition there is about economics, economics is not about goods and services, it’s about human choice and action. That’s what it is about. Economics is about a free market where people produce and meet the needs and wants of the citizenry and therefore succeed in economies or those who don’t and don’t make it, right? It’s about people being free to choose, free to choose what they want and that’s why government interference in that choice stifles our economy instead of it does what it proposes to do which is stimulate the economy, they can’t stimulate the economy, making out of the way and then the people [00:06:00] themselves stimulate the economy because they’re free, because economics is not about goods and services, it’s about human choice and action, okay?
All right, so what we’re going to do now, we’re going to get in to six principles of economic freedom and when I was thinking about this presentation getting ready to get it together here today, I thought it’s a very heavy presentation. There are a lot of quotes in this and we get in the constitution, we hit probably five or six clauses but not nearly as many as we do in the other presentations. But I think my thought on this is if we can get into the minds and the hearts of our founders and understand what they thought about economics, what they thought about the proper old government in the economy, then we can understand, okay, how do we impose that or transpose that into the constitution and see what these different classes they had, why they wrote them that way.
So, anyway, there’s a lot of quotes, be ready, but it’s fun. There’s a lot of good quotes. The first one I think is very good by Thomas Jefferson. It’s very much an underlying foundational quote, the policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, [00:07:00] neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits. That is the essence of government involvement in the economy. Stay out of the way. Don’t aid them, don’t restrain them. The proper role of government is to protect our rights and has very little to do with the economy. The economy will be run by people who are free.
Next quote by Thomas Jefferson again, he says, in political economy I think Smith’s Wealth of Nations is the best book. What are we talking about? Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Does Adam Smith ring a bell? He wrote a book called Wealth of Nations, a huge, great comprehensive book. Now, a lot of the things that are written in Wealth of Nations weren’t original ideas. Some of them were. But to pull those altogether into one comprehensive book was yes, very much a revolutionary idea.
So, what is Smith’s Wealth of Nations? What did he say in the Wealth of Nations? Apparently, Jefferson has read it, and he said, “Hey, I like this book. It’s the best book out there that teaches about political economy.” So, what did Adam Smith propose? There’s five principal things that he proposed. The first thing he proposed is specialization of production. [00:08:00] If you’re good at raising corn, you’re good at raising hogs and I’m good at building houses, why don’t we just focus on that and do our very best at that? There are some real economies gained there, right? Economization that’s gained because I’m good at — I spend my time changing and raising corn or changing and raising pigs. What if we all just do our very best at our own single specialization and then we engage in trade, right? And if you’re more efficient with your resources, what does that mean? You’re more productive, and if you’re more productive, that means you’re more wealthy. Okay, so the nation, the Wealth of Nations, that’s the title of his book, you can get more wealthy by having the specialization of production.
Secondly, he argued for and established this idea of supply and demand. Supply and demand is a pretty simple economic principle. When there is a demand for something, the market supplies that. If there’s not a demand, then the market won’t supply that, or if there’s a surplus, there’s too much supply and no demand, they’ll end up selling it for lower and lower prices, et cetera. So, supply and demand means it’s to the next point. The next point is price tells [00:09:00] the market what to produce and how much, pretty simple idea, right? If there’s a price point — and the market determines that. No one sets that. The market determines it. If something’s very popular, what’s going to happen to the price? It’s going to go up. If something is not popular, what’s it going to do? It’s going to go down. And it’s all determined by free individuals who say, “You’re meeting my needs,” or, “You’re not meeting my needs.” Price determines that.
All right, so moving on to the fourth point, competition keeps prices low and quality high. A simple example, I’m making a killing on leather boots. I’m selling for 100 bucks a piece to everyone and it only costs me 50 bucks to produce them and it’s making a killing. What’s going to happen? Well, because they’re popular and making a good price, I’m going to have competition. Someone else is going to come in and say, “I can make those same boots for 90 bucks,” and what’s going to happen with all of my market share? Gone. Everyone is going to buy their boots, assuming it’s of the same quality.
But he’s done it for 90, I’m going to sell them for 80, then my competitor says, “Well, I’m going to sell them for 60.” And I’d say, “Well, I’m going to sell them for 55.” That’s about as low as the price can go. [00:10:00] The whole time though, what else are we competing on? We’re competing on quality. We’re going to not only say these are the same boots, mine are better boots, mine are higher quality for a lower price. And what happens to the market? Competition makes the market produce higher quality and lower priced goods. That’s the definition of economics, using your resources more efficiently in creating that wealth with the same resources. Competition is what does that, it’s what keeps the price low and the quality high. Lastly, profits and losses motivate economic decisions. If that weren’t the case, if the government’s safety net was so high that you felt it lifting on you all the time, then what would I do?
If I knew that gosh, no matter what happens, any losses I have will be recovered and will be bailed out by the government. What am I going to do? I’m going to make stupid decisions. I’m going to do whatever I feel like doing that’s wrong, a bad idea, don’t do that. But I’m going to say, well it doesn’t matter if I do it because if I fail, they’re going to pick me up. What about profits? What if there are no profits? Why wake up in the morning? What’s the point? Government is just going to take care of me [00:11:00] anyway, why even wake up? Why you go out to work? Why struggle? Why get a sunburn and why would I stress my muscles? Why not just chill and relax?
Profits and losses motivate economic behavior, and that’s important to understand that. Who governs that? The free market does, people, individuals make those choices in an individual basis. The government doesn’t manage that. When the government tries to, and they try to make a command economy, you get socialism, you get communism. You get something that falls apart and that it doesn’t work. No system is smart enough to manage all this. Only people in sales get to choose for themselves. That’s what freedom is all about. So, that’s what his Wealth of Nations book, that’s why Jefferson called it the best book existent at the time, some good principles there.
One of the quotes by Frederic Bastiat, if you haven’t read Frederic Bastiat The Law, it’s an incredible book, I highly recommend it. Here’s what he says, look how he says the socialism like the ancient ideas from which it springs confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object it being done at all. [00:12:00] We disapprove a state education, then the socialists say that we’re opposed to any education. We object to a state religion, then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state in forced equality, then they say that we are against equality and so on and so on.
It is as if the socials were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain. Well stated, right? Pretty interesting. Wait a second, who’s supposed to do all this stuff? What we’re saying is socialists would say the government needs to provide this. Freedom lovers say, “No, the government needs to get out of the way and let us provide it for ourselves.” That’s the essence of economic freedom.
Okay, so that’s principle number one, the free market forces to control the economy, the government should not. Principle number 2 is the right to own and control property, and I have to tell you beforehand, I have a whole presentation called property rights in the constitution, so we’re going to touch this lightly because there is at least an hour and a half of information on property rights that we will get later on.
A classic quote about this is John Adams. He says, the moment the idea is admitted into society [00:13:00] that property is not as sacred as the laws of God and that there is not a force of law and public justice protects it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. Why is that? Because property is an extension of who I am. It’s the result of what I do. My property is in essence my life and my liberty. That’s what it is.
Madison puts it this way, a property in its particular application means that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world in exclusion of every other individual, and which leads to everyone else to like advantage. Property means it’s mine. I can do what I want to with it. It doesn’t mean no one else can’t do what they want to do with their own property but it means my property is my property. It excludes other people’s right to control my property. It’s mine. That’s the whole point. He has an equal property and the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. If it’s your property, you get to do with your property [00:14:00] whatever you’d like to do. That’s the whole point, isn’t it? It’s simple, that’s the essence of private property and that’s how freedom and wealth are created because I have control over my property and no one else tells me what I can and can’t do as long as what? As long as I’m not infringing on someone else’s rights through the use of my property or through my actions, otherwise I’m free to do what I’d like to do.
Washington puts it succinctly, private property and freedom are inseparable. It’s that simple. Private property and freedom are inseparable. You think about the nations of the earth, whether it’s not private property or it has very reduced ability to control and use your property and own your property, what happens? Economic extinction essentially, right? You look at all these third world countries, that’s why, because they don’t have private property. They can’t do with their property what they want to do. The government does it for them or they may own it and the government tells them what they’ll do with it. That’s not good.
Principle number three, the right to keep the fruit of one’s labors. Samuel Adams has a quote here that almost sounds current. It almost sounds like a modern day quote, because you understand when you start to listen to these foundries, you say these guys understand true principles. Yes, they are farmers, yes they’re agrarian but was the constitution written on farming principles, was it written on freedom principles? Look what he says, he says, “The utopian schemes of leveling –” okay, what’s leveling? It’s the redistribution of wealth. He who has give to he who has not, the redistribution of wealth. It’s a utopian scheme. It’s some altruistic idea, that utopian scheme and a community of goods which is simply everyone owns the goods which means nobody owns the goods, right? He says, those two schemes are as visionary and impracticable, impracticable, you can’t practice them, they don’t work, as those which best all property in the crown.
These ideas are arbitrary [inaudible] [00:15:53] our government unconstitutional. I like that quote because he’s saying these are bad ideas, these are dumb ideas, these are incorrect [00:16:00] ideas but we not only recognize those as bad, we have established I our constitution that those things will not be lawful in our country. That’s cool. He gets excited, so these things they’re talking about, they show up as principles in the constitution.
Jefferson also said this, I predict future happiness — talk about a current quote, right? I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Okay, another quote by Jefferson, you can tell he’s one of my favorite authors or favorite thinkers said this, to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Anyone in this room who are forced to give their money towards ideas they don’t agree on? Every one of us, right? Yes, that’s the problem. We’re being forced to support these ideas that we don’t even hold true when we talk about welfare or abortion or [inaudible] [00:16:56], all of our money is going towards that. He calls that sinful and [00:17:00] tyrannical. He says the government is overstepping its balance. It’s not just protecting people, it’s forcing people to do things they won’t otherwise do on their own.
So principle number four, personal responsibility, don’t do for someone what he can and should do for himself. Okay, this is the fourth principle. This is very good. I don’t know, I get excited about these quotes. This is a really cool quote by Franklin. Franklin says this, I am for doing good for the poor but I differ in opinion on the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed in different countries and remember, Franklin traveled more than anyone in the world at that point. I observed in different countries that the more public provisions are made for the poor, the less they provide it for themselves, and of course became poor. And on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves and became richer. It makes sense, doesn’t it? Drive them out of poverty, don’t make their life easy in poverty and they’ll continue to just take and take whatever the government gives them. Make it so they have an incentive to improve and get out of that situation.
[00:18:00] He goes on to say this, to relieve the misfortunes or [inaudible] [00:18:04] is concurring with deity. It’s godlike to help the poor. But if we provide encouragement for laziness and supports for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and nature? Which perhaps is a point [inaudible] [00:18:17] misery as the proper punishments for and cautions against as well as necessary consequences of idleness and extravagance. Whenever we attempt to amend the scheme of providence, we need be very circumspect, lest we do more harm and good.
Wouldn’t you like to read that to our current administration and congress? Say, look, [inaudible] [00:18:37] said you’re doing more harm than you are good. Why? Because you may be getting in the way of natural laws, of natural justice. And the government’s job isn’t to do that. The government’s job is to protect our rights, not ensure that nothing bad ever happens because sometimes bad things happen. When we make bad choices, what happens? You have bad consequence. That’s what I tell my kids all the time. It’s that simple. When the government gets in, “Oh, we’re not going to let you get hurt. [00:19:00] We’re not going to let you skin your knee.” Well, if you jump off the cliff, the government can’t stop that, right? There has to be some natural consequences.
Madison says this, this is in regards to helping the poor and not doing for someone what they should do for themselves. Madison says, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the constitution which granted a right to congress of expending on objects of benevolence the money of their constituents.” Here’s James Madison, the father of the constitution, he says, “You show me where, you point in the constitution where it says that Congress has the authorization to spend their constituent’s money for the poor to help other people.” It’s not in there, that’s what he says.
President Franklin appears to say the same thing in a different way, “I cannot find any authority in the constitution for a public charity. It would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the union state is founded.” What is the theory upon which they knew the states was founded? Isn’t it on personal responsibility? Isn’t that what it’s all about? Isn’t that what the American dream is? Is I can do whatever I want to. The sky is the limit. I can accomplish whatever I want to accomplish. [00:20:00] It subverts that. It destroys that philosophy by saying, “Oh, we’re just going to hand out money from someone to someone else and this transfers wealth and redistribute wealth.” That’s wrong.
Now, the question that comes, if we have been living — let’s assume we haven’t, I think we all agree. We haven’t been living constitutional principles for quite a while now. Let’s say we had. For the last 226 years, we have been following the constitution. Will there still be poor people among us? Sure, there would still be poor people, so how do you solve that? What do you do? How do you resolve that issue? Well, here’s how you resolve it, okay? There’s an interesting historical evangelist, Grover Cleveland in 1887, there’s a very, very popular bill that came from the senate and the house and passed easily and came to his desk. It was a public charity bill. It was through the misfortune of the poor and he vetoed it. And it was interesting that he actually advertised it out in a New York newspaper to explain to the American public why he vetoed it. He wanted to teach them a true principle.
[00:21:00] Here’s what he said, “The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizen in misfortune.” So, who’s going to take care of the poor that will exist among us? Their fellowmen, their neighbors, right? You can always count on them to do so. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character. Something bad happened to me, I need to look to daddy and who’s daddy? Daddy is the government. That weakens our national character. How does that weaken our national character? Because it turns me into a good law-abiding citizen but not into a good neighbor.
My neighbor is suffering, oh they got food stamps, they’re fine. My neighbor has some challenges, oh, there’s some program, there’s an agent. I think there’s a federal agent that goes in their house everyday and fixes that. Everybody says, “Not my problem,” and this turns us into good stoic citizens and not good neighbors. That’s essentially what he’s saying. While it prevents the indulgence among our people of the kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood. If we let government do for us [00:22:00] what we should be doing for ourselves and for our neighbors, then it puts government in an unnatural state. It’s not their state to do that. They don’t have resources, they don’t produce wealth. All they can do is take someone else’s wealth. Well then why don’t I choose to do that?
If I choose to do that, then guess what? It’s an active charity. If I’m forced to do it, it’s no longer an active charity, I resist that, someone taking my stuff. I’ll be glad to help my neighbor but I don’t want the government taking it from me and forcing me to get it to them. It’s a whole different story.
Principle number five here is government involvement in the economy should be non-intrusive, impartial, predictable in accordance with natural law. Frederic Bastiat once again going to him, here’s how he puts it, life, liberty, property, this is man, and in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation and are superior to it. So, the natural law says that life [inaudible] [00:22:54] property, it comes as a gift from God, not through legislation and legislation therefore can’t impede upon or infringe upon [00:23:00] life [inaudible] [00:23:01] and property. It’s important to understand that.
Now, Bastiat said there’s some natural laws. He had another name for laws that were unnatural that were against true principles of freedom, and he called those legalized plunder. He’s pretty famous for this idea that he’s developed in his book. He says, “How is this legal plunder be identified? Quite simply. See if government takes from some person what belongs to them and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. That’s what legalized plunder is. When the government makes it lawful for them, the government to take from one and give to another. See if government benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
He puts it pretty straightforward, doesn’t he? That’s exactly what’s happening in our economy today, taking from some and giving to the others. And if I were to do that, if I were to take from you and give to you, I get thrown in jail. But the government says no, we can do whatever we want to do and they break their very principle, they’re supposed to stand to protect.
[00:24:00] Now number six, our last principle, don’t spend more than your — Franklin who’s always kind of witty, he says this, spend less and you’re unhappy, spend more then you’re unhappy. Pretty simple, right? Jefferson, the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity in the name of funding is about swindling futurity on a large scale. Is that today? You better believe that is as current as it gets. Spending money, they call it kicking the can down the road and they say, “Oh, our grandchildren will pay for it.” That is swindling futurity. That’s swindling our grandchildren on a large scale and that’s exactly what’s happening today, because what’s happening? Because we’re spending more than we earn. Why is government doing that? Because in general, government represents the people and in general, the people themselves spend more than they earn. So, why would they expect they’re any different from elected officials than we don’t expect of ourselves? So, we need to do that, we need to practice that as well.
So, those are six principles of freedom. Now [00:25:00] what we’re going to do is we’re going to ask a few more questions, is there a proper role for government in the economy? I’ve talked over and over, the government shouldn’t be involved in the economy. It shouldn’t be there and it shouldn’t do this, it shouldn’t do that. Is there a proper role for government in the economy though? There is. Madison put it this way, persons and property are the two great subjects on which governments are to act. The rights of persons and the rights of property are the objects for the protection of which government was instituted. Government exists to protect people and their property. And it’s even more succinctly said in the declaration, the declaration says that the securities rights the government [inaudible] [00:25:34] are instituted among men. That is the purpose of government, is to secure the rights of men, period.
So, there’s a proper role and the proper role for government in the economy is to protect, protect men’s rights. So, the constitution requires government to enact and enforce laws that protect the free market forces as the means for controlling their economy that protect the right of man to own and control property, that protect the right of man to keep the fruit of his labors, [00:26:00] laws that protect the natural law of personal responsibility, to enact and enforce laws that protect men from intrusive, partial, unpredictable governmental involvement and to protect men from the enslavement of unpaid public debt. Does those six points ring a bell? Those are the six principles we just discussed, aren’t they?
So the role in each one of those principles, the single role of the government is to protect the rights of men in reflection or relation to those six principles. It’s a very great proper role of government it is to protect the rights of men so they can act freely in the economy and do what they think is best. Now, since we just said here, the constitution requires government to enact and enforce laws that do these things, the perfect segue to talk about the constitution now, where are those laws? How those laws show up, not just in principles, not just in quotes from the founding father but how they actually show up in actual words of the constitution. But before I go there, I’m tempted to just show you this other slide. Let me just show you the 10 planks of the communist manifesto so we can do a contrast between how it should be [00:27:00] than what’s actually happening.
And as we read through these, if you start to say, “No, wait a second, that’s happening, oh that’s happening, that’s happening,” don’t be surprised, okay? You may end up saying all 10 are alive and well. Number 1, abolition of private property, all land for public purposes. Number 2, a heavy progressive or graduated income tax, i.e. the 16th Amendment. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. Nowadays they say that inheritance t ax is over 50%. You better not inherit something from someone you’ll end up losing the farm over. Number 4, confiscation of the property of all immigrants and rebels. And who does this define who the rebels are? Well, the communists, it’s their manifesto. Rebels are those who rebel against communism.
Number 5, centralization of credit in the hands of the state by means of a national bank with state capital and exclusive monopoly, i.e., the federal reserve. Number 6, centralization of the means of communication and transport, the FCC, DOT. Factories and instruments of production owned by the state, [00:28:00] state controlled industrial and agricultural armies, combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries and number 10, free education for all children in public schools. You start to see the juxtaposition there, the contrast between what the constitution calls for with these principles, the freedom call for and what the communist manifesto calls for the exact opposite. But the scary part is that what the communist manifesto calls for is very much alive and well today, that’s the scary part.
So now, let’s get into the constitution. The first thing let’s start with a quote by Patrick Henry. It says the constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people. It’s an instrument for the people to restrain the government, lest it come to dominate our life and interest. Anyone here feel like the government is dominating their lives and interest? We’re just having a conversation a little while ago with some friends saying I can’t even drink raw milk at my friend’s house because that’s against the law. I can’t do that. Wait, they’re coming to dominate our lives and interests, aren’t they? It’s not their job.
Okay, so now we’re getting to my favorite part, okay, the part where we’re actually talking about what’s in the constitution. [00:29:00] What does the constitution itself have to say about the economy? The first amendment that came to mind for me was amendment 5 and 14. They’re both written the same way in this particular part and it says, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” Remember the previous quote we had with John Adams where he said that property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. Therefore if you’ve taken someone their property, you take from them their liberty. And the due process clause says you can’t do that. The government can’t take from people their life, liberty or property unless — and there is a stipulation there, unless what? They have due process of law. In other words then, lest they infringe on the rights of someone else’s life, liberty and property, if that happens, the governments proper role is to infringe on someone’s life, liberty or property, to throw them in jail, to restrict their liberty, to find them, to take them from their property, et cetera, because they have violated someone else’s rights. So, due process law allows for government to act on people’s life, liberty or property but only if they’ve had their day in court and been able to defend themselves and able to say, “Here’s what my case is.” If they’re found guilty, then yes there should be some action on them [00:30:00] and it’s proper for government to act on them in their role of protecting other citizens in their rights.
The next 14th Amendment is the equal protection clause, it says, nor shall any state denied any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. Now, think about how this applies to the economy. If someone’s not sure that the fruit of their labor is going to be taken from them, that they might randomly get punished or might randomly get regulated or told, “You will do this or won’t do that,” then are they going to take the risk of getting involved in the economy of building or of hiring or of starting a business? No. The economy will grind to a halt. It needs to flourish because it knows that government is going to be staying there and give equal protection to all citizens. Equal protection on the law is very important and this is the essence of the role of government, is to provide equal protection of the laws.
Now, I want to point out the word protection, it’s equal rights, not equal things. Notice that it’s protection, it’s not equal benefits. [00:31:00] Rights are the ability to do things, not to receive things. If you have a right, it means you’re free to do it, not means you’re free to receive it. It’s the natural law of the harvest, you have to do it and you receive. It doesn’t mean, “Oh, the government guarantees me in the equal protection clause that they’re going to give me things and it’s only fair because I am this or that different class than someone else and therefore I need to be equally given things.” No, you have equal protection. Everyone is free under the law to do what they want to do as long as they don’t infringe on someone else’s rights.
Equal rights, not equal things. Okay, those are the first two clauses that I think apply directly to the economy. Thirdly, the contrast clause. Article 1 section 10 clause 1, here’s what it says, no state shall pass in the exposed fact of law or law in appearing to obligation of contracts. Now, when it comes to contracts, what are contracts? Contracts is essentially commerce. It’s essentially the economy. People enter into different agreements. “I’ll give you this [00:32:00] if you give me that. I’ll pay you that if you give me this. I’ll exchange my labor if you pay me this wage. That’s what contracts are.” And very, very clear in the contracts clause, the government’s job is to get out of the way. They’re not supposed to set the terms of the contract, they’re there to ensure the terms of the contract are fulfilled in order to protect the rights of the two parties entering into the contract.
Let’s break this down, let’s look at this law impairing the obligation to contracts. So, two ways to look at contracting, the freedom to contract means that you should be able to be free to contract with whomever you want, under whatever condition you like to. It’s your choice and it’s their choice. As long as you two are good with it, the government can’t come in and say, “You can’t do that.” Yes, we can. We’re fine with it. We don’t have to make sure you like it. We like it, we’re fine. We don’t need you protect us from ourselves. But the freedom from contract means that you can’t be made a party to a contract without your consent. They can’t make you be part of a contract. That would violate your [00:32:00] right to self-governance.
So, no contract would be binding on you if you didn’t choose to sign or choose to enter it. The government said, “You have to do this.” That’s the contract. It’s very small, it’s like two sentences here or half a sentence. It’s very, very important to understand what that means though. You can start to apply that and say, “Oh yeah, the government’s job is not to make the terms. The government’s job is to enforce the terms.” It’s my job as a private citizen to enter into the contract.
Let’s go to the next line here, the exposed factor. What does exposed factor mean? Exposed factor means after the fact. Now, if the government makes the law or ruling but overrides a previous contract, that would be an exposed factor law. Do they ever do that these days? You bet. Have you heard of bailouts? Have you heard of short sales? Have you heard all these different rules and regulations they have, oh you can do that, it’s legal. Well, if you haven’t learned this already, it’s high time you know, just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s moral. It doesn’t mean it’s right just because something is legal. Many, many times the government will [00:34:00] write an engine to expose back the law after the fact, making something legal that wasn’t legal beforehand.
So, to make the point clear, the danger of the exposed factor law is that it can go retroactively back and make something illegal that was previously legal or vice versa. That’s the problem of exposed factor law. It’s an unnatural idea and that’s why the founders said, “No, we’re not going to do exposed factor law. It’s trying to redo what’s already been done through contract.” Now, the real world we live in, people enter in the contracts and sometimes people can’t fulfill their end of the contract, right? Now, don’t tell me the founders actually had a provision in the constitution for that too, but they did. They had a provision in the constitution about bankruptcy. So, in the bankruptcy clause, article 1 section 8 clause 4, it says this, congress shall have power to establish uniform laws and the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States.
Now, nowadays, we’ve already conditioned to think that bankruptcy means is, oh poor debtor. That’s what bankruptcy is all about, it’s the poor debtor, isn’t it? But [00:35:00] the reason, if you look historically, the reason that the founders put bankruptcy law into the constitution the first place wasn’t to help the poor debtor, it is to help the poor creditor because he’s getting hosed in the contract. When the creditor gives and the debtor can’t give back, who’s the one who’s poor and getting hosed? It’s the creditor, right? Bankruptcy is there to help the creditor, to make sure the creditor is taken care of.
Let me explain this a little bit further, the keyword in this is a uniform law of bankruptcy, because what happened before in articles of confederation, each state was able to set their own bankruptcy laws. There’s an infamous state, Rhode Island, they called that Rogue Island because what happened is that their bankruptcy laws were so pro-debtor that everyone had always moved their bankruptcy claims and property into that state and then say, “Okay, let’s go to a bankruptcy court.” And the laws are very pro-debtor and they can get off like bandits. So, everyone started just moving their property and moving their claims to more debtor-loving and debtor-helping states. And so the [00:36:00] founders said, “We can’t have that happen. We can’t have it between states because then people will get taken advantage of.”
Madison put it this way, and this isn’t in the federal support too, the power of establishing uniform laws of bankruptcy will prevent so many frauds where the parties or their property may lie or be removed into different states. So, that’s what they’re trying to do — that’s why they make sure, let’s make it a uniform law. Let’s make it so congress is in charge of setting a uniform law of bankruptcy, so that way the rights of the people involved in the contracts will be as protected as possible and not be defraud simply by moving to a state that’s more debtor-friendly.
All right, [inaudible] [00:36:38] of bankruptcy, there’s a quote, there’s a gem I found, get ready for this, you’re going to have to hold to your sides. This is from a bankruptcy lawyer’s website in Chicago. Surprised anybody? Bankruptcy should never be thought of as the last resort. In fact, the sooner bankruptcy is considered a viable option, the sooner the debtor can regain his or her dignity and become a more productive member of society [00:37:00] helping the economy recover. There’s no question that bankruptcy should be considered patriotic. So, wait a second, our world has turned upside down, hasn’t it? Bankruptcy is supposed to be to protect the creditor and help the creditor who is really the one losing out in this contractual obligation. And we’ve all been trained and indoctrinated to the point where someone can actually put this on their website and now they get laughed out of town. It’s patriotic and helps the economy? Really? Last time I checked it didn’t.
Now, this is a huge contrast. I think this is a little part of the constitution that I never really thought about before I saw it and I thought, “Boy, I’ve got to put this in the presentation.” Article 6 clause 1, very, very interesting. This says all debts contracted and engagements entered into before the adoption of the constitution shall be as valid against the United States under this constitution as under the confederation. Do you know what’s happened throughout history? Whenever a nation changes government, they always write off their debts, say, “Sorry, that was the old government that owed you a million dollars. We’re not paying for it.” What [00:38:00] did the men of integrity of our country, our God-fearing founders, what did they say? If we owed you under the articles of confederation, we owe you under the constitution. And there are some men who died in prison who were very rich and gave all they had. They literally did sacrifice their lives and fortune, never their sacred honor though. They sacrificed their fortune to pay back authorities who were helping the British in the revolutionary war, to pay debts to suppliers, et cetera, that any other person will say, “Well, I’m not going to pay for that, come one. That was war and just deal with it, write that debt off,” not these men. They had such a virtue that they actually wrote it in the constitution, “We will honor our debts.” Isn’t that beautiful? It’s a powerful idea, a powerful statement of the founders, to put it in black and white and make it part of our constitutional law, we will pay our debts, period.
Now, we can’t talk about economics in the constitution without hitting the interstate commerce clause. This is a big one. We’ve talked about this two or three different times [00:39:00] in two or three different presentations. I’ll try to go in a little more depth or at least a little different angle with this interstate commerce clause. Article 1 section 8 clause 3 says, the congress shall have power to regulate commerce among the several states. Now, the keyword there, there’s a couple of them. One I’d like to point out is among the several states. In other words, if you’re talking about jurisdiction, your among means interstate commerce, the commerce between the states, among the states. Notice it doesn’t say within the states because that would be intra-state commerce. Congress is only in charge of the interstate, the commerce that happens between the states, not the commerce that happens inside the states. That’s a huge, important distinction to understand there.
The second one it says, we’d regulate. What does it mean to regulate? It means to keep regular, to keep flowing, to keep happening. You understand the historical context behind the interstate commerce, class? What happened is there are states who are beating each other up, who are treating each other like foreign nations and putting duties and imposing taxes on all the commerce that came from other [00:40:00] states. And North Carolina said, “Well, if you want to accost our property, Virginia, we’re going to charge you 30% duties,” and Virginia says, “Oh yeah? We’re going to charge you 40%,” and Maryland says, “Oh yeah, we’re going to –” and the next thing you know, they’re destroying each of the duties and the economy is coming to a screeching halt.
Congress said, “We can’t have that happen. We can’t have states setting their own terms of duties and imposing taxes. We need to give that power to the congress.” And the power that congress has is to disallow any duties and taxes. So, we can start acting like a nation, we can start acting like a productive economy instead of grinding ourselves into oblivion with our taxes, et cetera.
This is reiterated, hopefully even clarified in article 1 section 9 clauses 5 through 6, it says this, no tax of duty shall be laid on articles exported from other state. Congress is going to disallow this export taxes and duties. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce to revenue to the ports [00:41:00] of one state over those of another. What does that mean? Well, if you have Alexandria, Virginia and you have Charleston, South Carolina, Congress isn’t going to say to the world, “Hey you guys, down in Charleston we’re only going to charge you 5% but if in Alexandria, we’re going to charge you 20%.” Where is all the commerce going to go to? It’s going to go to Charleston, right? They can’t do that. They can’t make a difference. As they put it, they can’t have a preference be given by any regulation of commerce. It has to be the same. So, there’s not going to be some manipulation by the centralized congress into where the commerce actually happens, where the economy can grow and flourish because they’ve chosen one port over another to give a grant of a special privilege.
Lastly, nor shall vessels bound to or from one state be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another. So in short, let me just in my own terms say what this means. Congress can’t put duties or taxes on state goods. Congress will make no law that gives unfair advantage to any state over another and congress will have the ability to disallow states [00:42:00] to impose duties and taxes on each other, so that commerce among the states can flourish. That’s what it says.
Let me give you a couple quotes that may say that more clearly than I just did. Madison says this, it is very certain that the commerce clause is intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the states themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the general government, same as what I just said. And James Monroe, this may be the clearest one, a power then to impose such duties and impose in regard to foreign nations and to prevent any on the trade between the states was the only power granted. Interstate commerce clause is very, very clear. It’s about the interstate commerce and it’s about congress disallowing them to put duties on each other. it’s that simple. And yet today, the interstate commerce clause is the granddaddy of all, it’s bringing all kinds of oppression, all kinds of regulation, all kinds of craziness to our economy because government misunderstands, misinterprets, misrepresents what the commerce clause is all about. Okay, so those are the clauses that apply to economics [00:43:00] in the constitution.
Okay, now we’re going to get to one of my favorite quotes, this is a great, great quote. This should be a bumper sticker, it would have to be a car wrap, it’s a long, long quote. You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they worked for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation. And he concludes by saying, “You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” It’s Dr. Adrian Rogers, a very good quote. It’s a synopsis of everything we’ve been talking about, isn’t it?
Now, we’re going to spend some time ending the presentation talking about modern day intrusion by the government into the economy. We’re going to take those six principles and give specific examples of how those [00:44:00] have been violated, how the clauses in the constitution have been violated in our modern day, okay? So, here’s our six principles. The first one we were talking about is the free market. The free market should govern the economy, not the government. When you think of free market, you think of free trade, NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement which currently congress is currently debating the TTP and the TTIP, is different partnerships and agreements to help free trade. Well, what’s an agreement that says free trade? It’s pretty simple, isn’t it? Free trade is like a one page document that says, “You’re free to trade to this, and we’re free to trade with you.” Why do we need 2,000 pages and 1,500 bureaucracies set up and international bodies to control that?
So, you look at free trade and you start to say, “Well wait, what do they mean by free trade? What the hell are these?” Now remember, we all know that European Union is completely falling apart, right? You know how the European Union started? It was simply a common market. It was simply a free trade agreement. It was called a common market. It was to help their economy. And what happened because of that? [00:45:00] That tiny little seed has grown into this huge bureaucracy of control. The European Union no longer has sovereign countries. They’re essentially bound to whatever the European Union wants them to do. That’s one of the examples of free trade, the free market.
I can give you some more specific example, the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae housing bubble burst. Talk about a free market gone [inaudible] [00:45:20]. Too many people say, “Oh what happened is those greedy banks got involved and they tried to manipulate the market and they took advantage of things.” Well, they would have never had the opportunity to take advantage. I’m not saying they’re not greedy nor culpable in some amount, but they would never have that opportunity had the government not inserted unnatural forces into the housing market.
Here’s a short-term benefit, what happened is a lot of politicians said, “Hey, there’s a good way to score some points here.” It is the American dream that every family should be able to own a home. Home ownership is the American dream and no one should be denied that and you banks are not allowing enough minorities, poverty level people to [00:46:00] get a loan. And the banks said, “Well yeah, that’s right. We only let certain people, regardless of the race or nationality or socio-economic status, regardless of religion, anything. They have to meet a certain financial standard, else we don’t loan to them. And the government says, “That’s not right.” And we can make political points on this. So, we’re going to make you do that. They said, “No, you’re not going to make it. We’re not going to loan our money out to people that aren’t worthy of the loan. We know they can’t pay it back.”
Government said, “Okay, well what if we guarantee that loan?” Bank says, “Sounds good.” “And what if they default on it and we’ll pay you for it?” They say, “Sweet, open the floodgates, let’s open this whole thing called subprime loans. Subprime means they’re below the standard needed to in order to — they don’t meet the standard to be loaned to. They don’t have the financial credibility to be given money to. So, they are subprime loans that is going out the door, banks love it. Every person is a potential loan receiver and they can makes tons of money, that’s how they make their money on loans.
What happens when lo and behold a couple years later [00:47:00] those people who couldn’t pay it on paper comes to bear and they really can’t pay it? What happens? Well, this big bubble that was burst or this big bubble that was pumped up with inflation with a bunch of money pumped into the system, it popped. And everyone knew that was going to happen, it had to happen. These guys aren’t credit worthy and they’re getting money given to them and they couldn’t pay it back and so the bubble popped. Now, why did that happen? It’s ridiculous I was actually mad when people blamed it on the free market. They said, “Oh, it’s because of the free market, because of the greed in the free market, that’s why we have to have more regulation to regulate those greedy bankers and regulate those greedy people who are trying to make money at the market.” That’s not what happened. It’s because government intervened and put unnatural forces in place and allowed the market to supply products that the market could not support.
That’s important to understand that because too often, it’s easy for them to blame the free market. The free market just has to be regulated. We have proof. Look at the housing bubble burst. [00:48:00] That’s because of a bunch of greedy bankers and capitalism. It was not, it was because of the government.
So, going back to the slide real quick, the short-term benefits, American dream that everyone should own a home, well what’s the long-term consequence? The long-term consequence is Americans who can’t afford homes defaults on their mortgages, all because government allowed them to incentivize the market to do something that was unnatural. Now, number 2, own and control property, federal and state public lands. Here’s the example today nowadays. This might blow your mind. Maybe you knew this, maybe you didn’t. But if you didn’t, you might start to have a heart attack here. The federal government claims they own 34% of our nation’s land area. They claim to own 34% of all of our land, the federal government, even though — foretell a little bit of my property rights presentation. Article 1 section 8 clause 17 is very clear, the federal government can only own land for forts, arsenals, magazines, dockyards and other needs for buildings.
What about national forests [00:49:00] and national parks and all these different things? They’re not legitimate federal lands and yet they claim to own 34%, that’s a third of our nation. The federal government claims they own in Wyoming 48% of our land here, 48%, nearly half of our land the federal government says, “We own, we control, you don’t. Only we can manage it. Only we can own it.” Really? Wyoming state government owns an additional 6% of the land in Wyoming, so therefore over 50% of the land in Wyoming is owned by the government. What happens to the productivity of that land when it’s owned by the government? It goes in the tubes, doesn’t it? Because government doesn’t have a national incentive to protect it, it’s not their land. What’s government land? It’s everyone’s land and therefore it’s nobody’s land. When it’s private land, you own it, you care, you do what you need to do to take care of it.
Lastly don’t forget, plank number 1 of the communist manifesto is what? Abolition of private property, all land for public purposes. Are we headed that direction? You bet. We’re headed towards the first plank of communist manifesto, all land is for public purposes [00:50:00] because government knows best, right?
Point number 3, keep the fruit of your labor. My example today, OSHA, EPA, Department of Labor, IRS, Department of Commerce, etcetera, there are fines, there are standards, there are minimum wage laws, the regulations, rules, policies, complicated tax codes, hiring procedures, not to mention labor unions that aren’t just allowed but in actually some states, they’re governmentally mandated. They have unions. Now, what are those things? They say we exist to protect. We’re here to protect people. That’s why OSHA is here, that’s why EPA is here. When in actuality though, what they do is they exist to take the fruit of someone’s labor and sustain themselves or redistribute to others. What they do in reality is not protect, what they do in reality is control. Their policy suggests they exist to control and they take the fruit of one’s labor, that which they have not produced themselves, period.
Now, there’s a quote here by Brian Farmer, he’s a writer in the [00:51:00] New American Magazine. He says regulation acts as a proxy for direct government ownership with the means of production. If government can regulate you and control you that way, even though they say, “Oh, you own it,” you really don’t because they control what you do with it. That’s a form of fascism. That’s what fascism is. Well, you own it but you can’t do what you want to, we tell you what you do with it. That is happening when these different agencies are set up to control our resources.
Number 4, personal responsibility, I think some of the classic examples of that, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidy, social security, welfare subsidized loans, subsidized housing, etcetera. Now, it’s really interesting. Those of us, in general, the people I associate with are in the middle class. The middle class are those of us who are producers. We get really frustrated with the redistribution of wealth because what are they doing? They’re taking the fruit of my labor and they’re giving it to somebody else. In the process, they are steaming from you, right?
I think too often we fail to recognize and think about the damage it does to the people who receive something for nothing. What does it do for them? It tells them you are [00:52:00] dependent. You cannot survive unless the government gives you something. You can’t survive unless we take it from somebody else. And it teaches them that they can’t have any pride in themselves in who they are. You have to sit back and be given something and you can’t be independent. Independent is free. You can’t have freedom. It destroys their freedom as well, it takes from my freedom because it takes fruit of my labors but it takes from them my freedom because they now have to be dependent. It’s a destructive circle but it takes control over the giver and the receiver — or not the giver, the person being [inaudible] [00:52:31] and the receiver.
And it’s been stated that two thirds of the federal budget is spent on programs and agencies and entitlements that are not supported by the constitution, that are involved in wealth redistribution. Two thirds of the federal budget is simply wealth redistribution.
Number 5, limited government. The classic example is the government bailouts. What happened with the government bailouts? Well, they set some standards, don’t they? The point to be made with government bailouts is it’s not government’s role to pick winners [00:53:00] and losers. The economy, the free market makes that choice. Very, very critical is the second point, freedom to fail is just as important as freedom to succeed. If you can’t fail, then you really can’t succeed either, can’t you? It’s all just one big saneness. If you want to have freedom to succeed, you have to have the freedom to fail, not just be bailed out because, “It didn’t work out. I’m too big to fail.” Too big to fail? How does that work?
Was the bailout money used to rebuild and restructure for stability? That’s an interesting thing to look into. I’ve done a little research on that, it was not used to rebuild and to restructure. It was used to take advantage of some of the smaller people in the industry and to build on their losses. I got money to rebuild and restructure, I’m going to use it to buy out to my competitor, my small competitor. Wait a second, that’s not what the bailout is for in the first place. It’s not that it’s good in the first place but they’re using the money that’s supposed to restructure and rebuild them and instead they did things they shouldn’t have done, like we heard in the news, gave multimillion-dollar bonuses to their executives, bought out [00:54:00] smaller companies, wait, wait, wait.
Now, and don’t forget, when the government bails them out, what does that mean? Who bailed them out? You and I have bailed them out. The government doesn’t produce wealth, remember? We do. We bail them out. So, there’s this company that was so big that’s too big to fail and I was forced to bail them out from any irresponsible decisions, it doesn’t make sense. That’s a violation of my rights, stealing my property from me to give it to them because they misused in ways to theirs.
Lastly, what precedent has now been set? The precedent is, don’t worry, you will get bailed out if things don’t work out. Go ahead and make them decisions. Go ahead and invest and be corrupt and do all these things because the people will pay for you. They’ll bail you out. What if the precedent has been set? Now, who owns big industries? Who owns the car industry? Who owns the banking industry? The government does, when the government owns that, that is the foundation block of socialism that the government owns the industries in the country.
Okay, so the last one, you can’t spend more than [00:55:00] you earn. We could do a whole list of things here but let’s just focus on some of the latest rhetoric. I find it fascinating, the debt seen an increase. Oh no, no, no, that’s the fiscal cliff, oh no, no, that’s sequestration, oh no, no, that’s government shutdown. What are they going to call it next? It’s all the same thing. It’s government out of control spending. We have to name it some things so that we can call it — because what if every two months they called it the same thing, government is spending too much, government is spending too much, government is spending too much, we’d catch on wouldn’t we and say, “Wait a second, government is spending too much.” But instead, they call it all these different things and make it look all complex. It is not complex. Government is spending more than they earn. Do we have a problem with that? Yes. Is it perpetual? Yes. Are we fixing it? Oh no, no.
What happens when we have these compromises, what are the compromises? They’re not compromises, they’re full-bore, simply kicking the can down the road, saying, “No, we’re not going to deal with this now. We have to spend money. We don’t have any other choice. That’s what we do in government, we spend money, don’t we?” Wait a second, if the people have to manage their budget and have to tighten their belt, [00:56:00] then the government should have to manage their budget and tighten their belt. How would they do that and where would we start? How do we start the constitution, right? Remember, 80% of what’s spent in the federal government is spent unconstitutionally? Let’s start there. That would be a great way to tighten the belt, wouldn’t it?
So, as to not depress you, the real question we need to address is what can we do? I hope it’s clear and I hope I’ve said this over and over and I hope it rings in your ears, what we need to do is we need to get back to the constitution. That’s what we need to do, get back to the constitution. It has the solutions. What does it tell us about the economy? What does it tell us about contracts and bankruptcy and commerce and all these different things that has the answer? So, what we simply needed to do is turn back the constitution, understand the true principles, educate ourselves, share information with others, take action in order to take our country back and to take our economy back, put it back on sound principles of freedom, those principles that are found in the constitution.