ADD IOWA AND WEST VIRGINIA TO THE GROWING REVOLT LIST

You can potentially add Iowa and West Virginia to the growing list of American states that are fed up with FedGov overreach, according to these two stories shared by W.G. (and I apologize for the first link and all the "garbage" that came with it, try as I might I just couldn't get rid of it):

And the second story (with similar apologies):

Respecting the first article, it is important to note that the proposed legislation is still in sub-committee and has not been brought to a full vote, nor signed into state law by the governor. But the context is nonetheless worth considering, for it is clear that the "final straw" was at least in part the planscamdemic and resulting FedGov overreach:

Rep. John Wills (R) introduced House Bill 2012 (HF2012) on Jan. 11. Under the proposed law, the legislative council would have the authority to review any executive order issued by the President of the United States, if the order “has not been affirmed by a vote of the Congress of the United States and signed into law, as prescribed by the Constitution of the United States.”

Upon a recommendation by the executive committee, the state attorney general would be required to review the executive order.  Under the law, the state, a political subdivision of the state, or an organization receiving public funds from the state, would be prohibited from implementing any executive order that the attorney general determines to be unconstitutional during the review.

The law covers executive orders that relate to any of the following:

• A pandemic or other health emergency
• The regulation of natural resources including coal and oil
• The use of land
• The regulation of the financial sector as it relates to environmental, social, or governance standards
• The regulation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms

On Jan. 27, a subcommittee of the House State Government Committee recommended passage of HF2012 by a 2-1 vote.

Turning to the other article, West Virginia is slated to become the latest state to pass legislation recognizing gold and silver bullion as "legal tender" in the state:

A bill filed in the West Virginia House would recognize gold and silver as legal tender in the state. The legislation would pave the way for West Virginians to use gold and silver in everyday transactions, a foundational step for the people to undermine the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money.

Del. Chris Pritt introduced House Bill 3135 (HB3135) on Jan. 12. The bill would create the “Legal Tender Act;” establishing gold and silver as legal tender in West Virginia. It would also create a nonrefundable tax credit offsetting federal capital gains taxes on the sale of gold and silver.

In 2019 West Virginia passed a bill repealing the sales tax on gold and silver bullion.

IN PRACTICE

In 2011, Utah became the first state in over 80 years to pass a law making gold and silver coin legal tender. The following year, the legislature followed up, approving a bill clarifying several tax measures and more importantly, expanding the definition of specie to include gold and silver coin approved by the state. With the law in place, United Precious Metals Association (UPMA) opened a “gold bank” that offers publicly available accounts denominated in gold and silver dollars in Utah. According to the UPMA, in the past year, it has grown 700 percent in assets under management and made up 2 percent of the market for U.S gold and silver coins. Account holders can make everyday transactions using their accounts through a debit card system.

With the passage of HB3135, West Virginia would follow Utah’s lead and take a step toward treating gold and silver specie as money instead of a commodity. As Sound Money Defense League Policy Director Jp Cortez testified during a committee hearing on a similar bill in Wyoming last year, charging taxes on money itself is beyond the pale.

Note, again, that it's not simply specie - gold and silver coins - but simply gold and silver bullion that are the focus of the bill. If, say, one had a few ounces of silver in the form of bars or medallions, one could exchange, for example,  three ounces of those silver bars for $150 worth of groceries at a participating store. With enough participation, the end of monetized debt fiat money (and its "digital currency" "upgrade") is not far behind. Also not far behind is a West Virginia bullion depository, or perhaps regional depositories for several states...

With respect to the Iowa executive order nullification bill, I suspect we're looking at the tip of an iceberg that is only going to grow, for implied within it is a review process for all prior executive orders. It's a process, in other words, that will grow not only in terms of executive orders brought under scrutiny and review, but also  process that I suspect will grow from state to state.

However, it  is worthwhile to consider a caution: there will be those tempted to lump such measures as these together with those calling for a convention of the states to amend the Constitution. Again, I cannot  emphasize strongly enough what a disaster I think that convention would be. Let's remember, the first convention of states was to gather and amend the Articles of Confederation. What we got, instead, was a coup d'etat in the form of the Philadelphia Convention and the current constitution, which the anti-federalists of the time (and I would have been one of them) were warning that was nothing but a document to produce plutocracy and oligarchy (and here we are). If you suspect that my language - "coup d'etat" - is too strong a characterization of that event, let me ask you a question: Who were the presidents of the United States after the peace with Great Britain, and before the adoption of the current constitution? Why are they not as much a part of our historical memory as George Washington or Abraham Lincoln? (Answer: John Hanson, Elias Boudinot, Thomas Mifflin, Richard Henry Lee, John Hancock, Nathaniel Gorham, Arthur St. Clair, Cyrus Griffin). Let us also acknowledge something else, and something that emerges as a dangerous implication of those advocating a convention of the states: there is no one in the current political class of the stature of a Madison, an Adams, or a Jefferson (whom, it will be recalled, was not present at the Philadelphia convention, and would that he had been!) to guide any deliberations of such a convention. Instead, you will have the likes of Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, Lindsay Graham, Chuck Schumer and people of that ilk guiding things.

All of this brings us back to the Iowa and West Virginia bills, for they both have something in common: they are both working from within the current constitutional system. In other words, we don't need a new one. We simply need to observe the one we have. That, of course, raises other questions, but those can await another time, and a patient and careful reading of the Anti-Federalist Papers...

... See you on the flip side...