Just a minute
I'm coming
Just a minute
Hello everybody, this is legal man. Welcome to show. This is gonna be a good episode
I'm gonna continue this ratification any Federalist kind of series I've been running and today
I'm gonna do something a little different
I'm going to make some proposed amendments to the Articles of Confederation that will address the supposed
Problems that existed without the need to have to get rid of the entire document and for people who don't know me
I'm a lawyer a practice for more than 35 years
I'm America's most trusted beloved lawyer because I tell people the truth and the truth is I was a
Constitutional conservative believer a dupe for years and years and years believed all this stupid crap about our old
Confederation didn't work. We had to have the Constitution three co-equal branches and brilliance and document and I
Just got so stupid the stuff I believed I ran around defending it and promoting it for years and years and years
And then about 25 years ago
I got the internet and a fairly short order I started figuring out the whole thing's a scam
It's a con a griff to keep me on a tax-paying plantation
And when I figured that out I became self-certified as a master practitioner and I don't need constitutional conservatives anymore
I've also given myself a lifetime achievement award for the hundreds and hundreds of timeless podcasts
I've made explaining the way the system actually works
I gave myself a lifetime achievement award for the incredible job. I did playing
Nathaniel Jones in Jones Plantation and
Recently I've given myself a fake Nobel Peace Prize for the way I
Performed in Barnum World as Natty
Helping to bring the world together
and I love having fake awards and credentials and
Citations and everything else because that entire system is a control system
See they make sure that people have to get licensed and accredited or a lifetime achievement awards or something else in order to practice
Professions and to be able to make a living the way it works is they force everybody to memorize
officialdom and regurgitate it but turns out officialdom is all a pack of lies
And so if you don't do that properly then they take away your license of certification or your lifetime achievement award
And everybody saw that during COVID when certain doctors nurses and academics spoke up
They tried to destroy him professionally take away their ability to make a living and this is the way they always use this system in
order to make sure that the lies can be promulgated officially and
Until people understand the absurdity of having government in the position of being the arbiter of who can or can't
Practice this job or say this or an expert there until people can understand how I'm saying that is we have no chance
So I like to make fun of it and mock it and hope people catch on
Okay, enough about all that. Let's go ahead and get the show going
So I want to make a show today continue the ratification any federalist kind of series
And what I want to do today is I want to talk about
ways they could have simply amended the articles of Confederation and
Made them work really completely fine
Even if you want to believe any of these so-called problems they claim existed
And I've spent many many episodes showing people that these problems are mostly just imaginary
They didn't really exist there may have been some problems somewhere some minor something or other
But the way they made it out to be this crisis situation and that the artist Confederation
Was just hopeless and too weak and couldn't work and blah blah you always hear the same thing
They were failing it was too weak and couldn't work and blah blah blah. It's always the same every time
But you know, I've spent many episodes looking into where are these actual problems?
And there really aren't any problems the problems are all the same and that is there was no money
This idea that the states were all fighting and there's all these problems. It's just they're not an issue
There's a way to resolve disputes between the states that existed in the artist Confederation
And it just really was never used the states weren't really fighting like that. It's true. They were disagreements
There's disagreements in Congress
There's disagreements about how to do things there always are it doesn't mean you have to throw it all out and get a new government
That's just all complete and utter nonsense. That's all
it's just complete and utter nonsense and
What I want to do is this is not a
supposedly
Comprehensive analysis of all the amendments and anything else. It's just I
Sat down and spent some time
Looking at these so-called
allegations about what the so-called problems were and then just kind of noodling out a few different kinds of
Proposals that could be put out there and my personal belief is that the problems with the artist Confederation to the extent they were ever
Legitimate which I know in fact they weren't but to the extent they ever were they could have easily been worked out
But to the extent that they wanted an actual
Additional sovereign power over and above the states and the people for all practical purposes to run their little game
Then amending the artist Confederation was never going to work and that's why the entire
Narrative about how the articles were failing. They couldn't work. They had to be replaced
Everybody knew it blah blah blah has to be run all the time
And that's why the convention that they held to amend the articles didn't include any actual discussion of amendment within the first week
Or so Madison was already shoving in his Virginia plan and
Multiple states weren't even there and they just started going forward by the time
they had a bunch of the states there a lot of the stuff that already been decided and
The idea of amending was out the window and all of these preposterous ideas about how they took a vow of silence and everything else
This is absurd
They had principles in the form of the states and the idea that they could somehow take a vow of secrecy
Against their own principles is asinine and I've already showed that there's absolutely no possible way what they claim went on went on
The earliest documents we have for the most part didn't come out for 30 years Madison's notes are 50 years before they were released
We don't have any kinds of
Contemporaneous newspaper articles or anything else including anything even if you want to say that I missed half the stuff
That's out there and there's this and there's that note
And it's okay. Maybe there's some stuff out there. I don't know. I know this
Washington's journal is blank for the time and I'm sorry, but that alone is to me
Basically irrefutable evidence that it's all a lie
That's all and the fact that Madison's notes weren't released for 50 years
Those two facts alone are enough for me when you add in the fact that there's no newspaper coverage
The entire way it was ratified everything else
I'm sorry. The evidence is so overwhelming that I don't care if people want to nitpick with me about oh you said this legal man
That's not exactly it. There was this and and New Hampshire said this and fucking Virginia said I don't care
The overwhelming evidence is clear
It's absolutely crystal clear that the official fairytale is a complete lie
Just like every other official fairytale that we get and one of the most important fundamental ones is that you could never have an
Actual open discussion about objective potential amendments. You have this government in place
that's supposedly a perpetual union under its own terms and
Was good enough to beat the British and yet it just has to go with no attempt to fix it at all
Nothing even proposed they hold this convention to get some amendment possibilities out
Nothing comes out with this whole new Constitution with not even any changes to that because I'm gonna do an
Entire episode probably the next episode showing you how you can simply make
alterations to the Constitution itself and fix the vast majority of the problems with it
But what I want to do today is just show you that these fundamental problems to the extent
They even exist that there were very simple potential amendments and again the amendments
I'm gonna suggest the changes. I'm gonna suggest they don't
They don't have to be precise
I'm saying that in a matter of a couple weeks you could sit down with these issues and the kind of language
I'm throwing out there and listen to it and some lawyers could argue about it
And you could reach an agreement about what is the kind of a language that might be agreeable
you can it's just very simple to do and
That's the import of this is to show people that they need to get out of the mindset of the idea that they couldn't work
They couldn't be fixed. They were too weak had to have this change had they got rid of a blah blah blah
Get out of that idea and start thinking okay. Well, they have a complaint about this. What can we do about it?
How can we amend it?
Which is what they were supposedly sent there to do under this supposed idea that there are always these problems
Even though you really when you go look you really can't find any these problems
Well, let's just go and start sort of noodling around with what I have so far
And the first one is all this supposed fighting that was going on between the states all fighting among the states the terrorist
This and terrorist that okay. We got a very simple proposal. I've got an amendment here
That would just say that no state shall lay any duty or post on goods from another state without the consent of Congress
What's wrong with that I don't understand so if you want to put
Duty or a tariff on that you got to get congressional approval
That's all if you can get a congressional approval, then you can do it and if you can't well, then you can't okay
They didn't even try this as a possibility. They didn't even try it
You could have one state would propose theirs. They want to okay. There it is it goes through Congress
It has to get the consent of Congress in order for you to put it on there
Why isn't that worth trying in order to save the government? Why would you throw it all out?
Think of all the problems we have now in the Constitution does anybody ever talk about just throwing the whole
Constitution out because we got a problem now. Well, you can't even find one one thousandth of the problems
We have today back then and yet they're immediately saying it's completely hopeless
Why not just have this that it just goes into the Congress and the Congress has to approve it. That's all
They get the consent of Congress. I don't get it that seems perfectly reasonable
You could just even have it as a bare minimum
Majority you don't even have to require one of these nine state things
You don't even have to you can just have an amendment that said that and
I don't get it
Does that not address a huge supposed issue? It basically makes it so that Congress is
The equivalent of putting a tariff on there putting a tax
It's basically the equivalent if they agree to let the state do it. Okay. Well if the state can do it and
I've got another one that goes with that one. I think is
Really really extremely helpful with regards to supposedly going after this problem, which is both the
tariffs and duties okay an impulse and all the different reasons they do it and penalties and blah blah blah
The great trade war between the states and all his shit
And at the same time that Congress has no money. Oh, I gotta have Congress. You can't fund itself
Well, I was always dying for money. It couldn't get any money. Oh, please. We've got to have money. Okay. Okay. Well
How about this one as an amendment all duties and imposts all of them
Shall be collected into a state held account
overseen by Congress from which Congress can draw its apportion share on a regular schedule
The idea behind this amendment is that look you don't give Congress the right to collect all the stuff and take it out
Of the states and everything else you just say look the states can continue to collect all these duties on
Imposts and stuff like that from foreign governments and if it's been between the states well, then they have to
Get congressional approval. So there's no fighting like that
You still have the original idea that they can take any dispute to that basically binding arbitration
But in this one instead of it going into the federal government's coffers
It goes into what is in effect a kind of a trust account
That would be operated by the state being held by a third-party bank where the money would come into this
Account and the Congress could draw out whatever it was. They were agreed to 25% of
All tariffs and imposts whatever the state laid that would go directly to Congress
They're thinking just fund themselves on a regular basis monthly or quarterly or whatever does the states might want to do again
These kinds of details are something you work out
But the general concept is this constant
Hurang about how the federal government couldn't afford to pay itself and was always running out of money
And they couldn't get the states to pay and they had no way to enforce it and blah blah blah
Well, the vast majority of all these taxes that came from the state's value of the land
Which the means they just had to value up their land and then send in some portion that Congress demanded
Okay. Well, how much they should have to send in from their tariffs and stuff
Well, that could all be used in the same kind of apportionment that however much your land was worth or you could have some other
Combination of stuff that would be have to do with ones that were on the ocean where they're getting a lot of
International trade they might have a slightly different calculation the actual calculation of what the state owed who knows
but the reality is that these assessments that were made by the
Original Congress here in this Articles of Confederation basically is like a property tax each year
Well, the property tax on the state had to be raised in some form or fashion
And so you could even expand out my provision to be that all imposed duties and whatever kinds of taxes the state decides to lay
They have to be placed into this same kind of trust account and Congress would be entitled to 25% of it
So if the state wanted to shrink the stuff down it just wouldn't collect as much taxes
And then Congress is stuck with this 25% or whatever the number is however you want to agree to it
But the structural setup which actually solves 100% this issue of Congress not being able to fund itself
No way to enforce it have to have a strong federal
Executive and judiciary and all this other crap and give Congress the power to lay and collect taxes individually
You don't need to do any of that
There's only so much money that can be collected
Okay
Well the state's gonna collect what it can collect and then it pays to Congress that amount and as opposed to having to wait for the
State to actually pay it where they could slow pay and all this other crap
You would have a system set up where the money for the state would be set into this account and first the federal government could
Draw their stuff out in the state would get this remainder
It's not that uncommon an arrangement in a legal situation where you don't trust people
People use trust accounts and all sorts of other
Accounts in real estate deals and everything else where it's held by a third party and
Once the parameters are met then the money is released and it's very simple
And this way the federal government has its money
It doesn't have to wait for it doesn't have to beg the states and the states don't have to worry that the federal government's gonna
Run through everything and take over at all with its own
Taxing authority, so it's just it mean it completely and totally fixes that and you can maybe you argue with it
Maybe you don't like it exactly okay, but I'm telling you a structure is available like that
That's very simple and fixes all these problems
Fixes all these problems now the next big one that they were complaining about was this idea that the states
Couldn't be made to do anything that the federal government had no way to enforce its so-called laws on the states
Which first of all again, there's really no evidence for this except for the trying to get paid
And these made up treaty problems, which I've also addressed
Because the treaty massively overstepped the federal government's authority
But I wanted to address this issue and this is a relatively long
It's kind of a paragraph long addition that would need to be in there
But it addresses all sorts of things in this area with regards to how do you force the states to do anything when the federal government
Issues something right they says don't they just don't do it. Okay. That's a potentially legitimate complaint
So here's my solution if any state shall willfully and persistently refuse to comply with provisions
Lawfully agreed to under this confederation. In other words if Congress says they got to do something
Then they got to start doing it and after do notice an opportunity to respond
Congress may with the consent of two-thirds of the states
Suspend such states participation in congressional decisions and its access to the union benefits for a period not exceeding one year
the construct here is that look if the state's not doing something and
The other states realize hey, they're not doing it. This is kind of ridiculous
Well, if you get two-thirds of the states agree that hey, you know, this isn't working that they're not doing what they're supposed to
This is bullshit. We're paying they're not paying even that's already been eliminated with my other provision
Whatever it might be they could simply vote to say look you got to comply if you don't comply
Then you're not gonna get any of the benefits and you don't get anything from the federal government
And you don't get any access to any of the stuff. They're doing while you're outside of compliance
this could be something they could put in and then I put in a provision as well that if one of the smaller states thinks
It's being taken advantage of and believes it is in compliance
It would have a measure to do that and this is what I said about that
If the state can test the findings of non-compliance the matter shall be referred to a tribunal
Composed to three arbitrators one appointed by the state in question one by Congress and a third by mutual agreement or by lot from the other states
In other words, we're gonna have another binding arbitration tribunals decision shall be final if non-compliance is confirmed and continues beyond one year
The other states may by unanimous consent declare the offending state removed from the kind of
Federation with appropriate settlement of shared obligations and assets, which I do make a
Accommodation for later, which I do make accommodation for later
But the basic structure is the same and again you can argue about whether it should require
Unanimous consent to kick them out or two-thirds would be sufficient again
Even after the finding these are just details that people can argue about the fundamental construct
I'm dealing with here is this gives you a very clear way for the states to maintain control of
This decision which is look we all agree this thing is going to be a
Confederation we agreed we're going to do this under the rules
You're not doing your part if you keep not doing your part
Then you're not going to get any of the benefits of being in the union and if that goes on for up to a year
Then at that point we can just kick you out with a vote and that's it you're done
We're not going to keep screwing around with you and it provides protection for the state by having this panel saying look these guys
They're just ganging up. I mean this is bullshit and he can go into an arbitration panel of
The Congress the state and another third neutral party to make the decision and then it's final exactly the same as any other
Binding arbitration. I don't see how that can be unreasonable. How can anyone argue with that that?
absolutely 100 percent guarantees that the states can be made to comply and
You still don't have to have a strong executive and judiciary and shove it down their throats
And it's out there inside their control
It still stays basically in the power of all the states together
Kind of two-thirds of three-quarters or bear majority or unanimous or however you want to determine it
those things can be argued about but the construct keeps it within the
protections of the states and doesn't
Elevate it up to something that's outside the state's control. See it's outside the state's control with the Constitution. I
Think this is eminently reasonable and solves
Supposedly so many of the problems they had because the entire need for a strong judiciary and everything else for what well
You got to be able to get the states to be able to okay. I just gave you something
That's an alternative that works perfectly fine
First of all there weren't a bunch of issues where the states were not complying and the other states were so pissed except for the
Money, I've already solved the money issue
I've already solved it
So let's go on now and look at the supposed need for a strong executive and all this other stupid shit
Everybody remembers from my show when we went through the Art of Confederation
They had this committee of states which is the equivalent of the executive inside of the Art of Confederation
But it was small and it was really only operating when Congress wasn't in session
And it had limited kinds of powers and so my idea would be to amend it and expand out that committee of states
Which allowed the states to completely control that committee
They could bring the president out inside the committee
They could change a committee and they could oversee the committee and the members on the committee couldn't sit for very long
And they were 100% totally beholden to the Congress at all times, which is ultimately the states and here's my proposed language for this
The committee of states, which is what I just talked about shall be a standing body
Empowered to carry out the administrative functions of Congress
Continuously in other words the equivalent of the executive the presidential branch
Well, the committee of states just gets expanded out a little bit. It's gonna run all the time its actions shall be subject to immediate override
Modification or repeal by Congress whenever assembled and Congress may replace or reconstitute the committee at its discretion
In other words, yes, we have an executive. No different than you have somebody running your company
He's out there is running your company, but if he's doing a shitty job, the board just removes him. It's not complicated
This is exact same thing and you could again argue about whether or not the override has to be by two-thirds or a majority or
Sometimes the majority sometimes two-thirds or whatever it is that they could modify something they could step in they could repeal it
whenever they cared to
My solution allows for the so-called executive need a need for strong executive to be there
They're welcome to be as strong as Congress wants them to be but it makes no sense to have an executive
That's not answerable to Congress in the states that doesn't make any sense
See that makes no sense at all if you are forming a company or a limited partnership
You don't want to have a general partner that can just run roughshot over the limited partners
That doesn't make any sense if you have a company
You can't put in a president and a CEO that simply does whatever it cares to and doesn't listen to shareholders
That makes no sense. That's not logical and my solution right here would allow in effect the executive
Which would be this committee to be expanded out
To do any and everything that was in any way needed that Congress wanted to be done
Without having to have congressional constant passing laws. They're just out there doing it the committee's doing it's doing that
It's order. Okay. Well if the Congress thinks it's out of control
The Congress can just stop it override it modify it pull those people out and put someone else in that they know is
Going to respond. This is how you stay responsive to the states and the actual owners of this entity
Which is the federal government see the framers the holy framers the constitution
I wanted to make sure that the federal government was above the states and could just do stuff without the state's fucking
participation
They knew how they could water all this stuff down
Mine is an answer to it. There's certainly absolutely no reason in the world
Not to try these very very simple
Amendments some variation of them as I've said again and again you can hammer out the basic details
And I'm not even saying these are the best possible solutions. I know this
As a lawyer these are good solutions. Are they perfect? Are they something you get everybody to agree with?
I don't know. I have no idea
But I know this nobody can have a legit complaint about the supposed needs
For all these things without this because all you had to do is have congress say hey
Look, you got to comply with this x y and z state if you don't
Well, if you don't want to do it, then your rights are suspended
And if you object and you can go have the thing arbitrator if you continue to ignore it
Well, this is going to kick you out because this doesn't work. You're free to go on your way
We're going to keep running our shit if you want to run your shit in some other separate way
You're welcome to but not with us
Not with us that works fine
The idea of needing the money all the time it's solved
It's absolutely solved all the state funds that they collect could put in an effective trust account
And the congress would be entitled to whatever it is the
States agree to in congress
It's very simple. It's this is very very simple. You don't have to create all this other stuff
No need
And I also wanted to propose this because this is not even an amendment
And the reality is all those things are amendments. They would have to be an amendment agreed to
Well, how are we going to get agreement on this? What if we can't get agreement of this?
We couldn't even get agreement about giving the congress the right to pass
Independent tariffs. Okay. Well, I understand why they don't want to give congress that right
But we never even tried these where the states maintain control of the money
They can raise whatever they want. It's just they got to pay their fair share of whatever it is they raise
Okay
So the issue becomes
What if we can't get these amendments done? You still have to make accommodation for that
They didn't do anything like that in the constitution. It's other than ludicrous
I've already showed you how as a legal matter it makes no sense
What was the legal standing after nine states ratified where they still in the articles of confederation had the articles of confederation been dissolved
What happened to the assets in there? What if the other states hadn't agreed?
Who was going to get the assets? They allowed them a strong arm. What about the taxes? What about anything else?
Nothing is accommodated for and it is a thing that has some additional
complications when it comes to treaties and other things like that
But in general one because states were absolutely free to leave the articles of confederation
That's obvious. Otherwise, they could never even afford the constitution. It doesn't even make sense
But the argument by the federalist when it was in the hands of the people and all this other shit
Okay. Well, whatever it is, you've got to make a combination and so for me
I've got this it's a kind of a paragraph long way to accommodate for these
Issues with regards to maybe we can't get all these amendments agreed to maybe you can only get certain
People to agree to it. Maybe if you only have nine states agreeing to any of this stuff
It's like well, look we want to go our own way
We're going to basically dissolve
Our interest in the artist confederation form our own situation with another articles and add this stuff in there
And we're going to move forward as the united states of america
2.0
And you can be a united states of america 1.0 and we're nine and you're four whatever it is
That's fine. So we have to make a combination for that. Here's kind of a language
I've drawn up in the event that the proposed amendments are not unanimously ratified
And a new confederation is formed. In other words, we only get nine. You can't get them. Okay
We can't get the things unanimously approved. That's what the thing requires
I would also add that you might want to have an additional
Amending process that takes into account this for the future that in the future should such and such
They always have the option to continue to move forward just like this where it's like look if you don't want unanimous
Approval you can get approval of two thirds of three quarters or whatever it is you want like we have now three quarters
And that if they don't approve that the three quarters would have the option to simply move on without them
That way but they put them in the choice you want to amend it and stay with us
Or you'd not want to amend it and stay in your own stuff. That's it
So in the event the proposed amendments are not unanimously ratified in other words that are not ratified
And a new confederation is formed because they go through this other thing
All lands funds armaments and other assets held by congress under the current union
Shall be inventoried and equitably apportioned among the states based on population or any agreed ratio
In other words, you're going to have to decide how you're going to break it up
But this is again something that lawyers
Negotiate all the time if we can't reach agreement. What kind of equitable division will there be? I always have
We cut you choose provision. I think it's the most fair
All partnerships have different ways the I cut you choose method is that the nine who
Decide to leave or the four who decide to stay or whatever it is 10 and 3
Those are two separate groups the 10 can divide up make proposals about ways to divide it
Into two different sets that are somewhat what they believe equitable
Whoever divides it up the other party gets choice of which one of the two he takes
So you could have the small group divide it up and then the large group gets to choose
Or the large group divides it up and the small group gets to choose this guarantees
That it's a fair division because you're not going to make it unfair because you don't get to choose
The person who gets to divide it up doesn't get the one to choose it
So there's lots of ways to do this
To equitably apportion among the states that are left what would happen
But you have to have some kind of provision for this. This is not an amendment
There's nothing in the Articles of Confederation that requires this being amendment
This can just be a resolution to congress because anyone's free to leave at any time
So you got to have some way to divide it up got to it's not like you can get amendment a full agreement on how to divide it up
Doesn't even make sense. You just uh, this is it. This is what you do, but it continues
Any debts or obligation occurred under the article shall be assumed proportionately may all states party the new confederation
Okay, same kind of thing you cut we choose
No states shall claim exclusive right to common property without such a settlement
If no such agreement can be reached within six months, the assets shall be liquidated. We're practical and the proceeds divided proportionally
Indivisible assets shall be held in joint trust or assigned by lot or by tribunal or arbitrators or by you cut
I choose you can have any kind of way you want to divide this stuff up if they can't be agreed to
I still think you cut. I choose is the most effective way it absolutely
Guarantees that whoever's picked is going to try to make a reasonable
Allocation because if you screw it up then you lose
And this is i'm not going to say it's bulletproof, but it's a very very effective term to put in any kind of dissolution agreement
And you can simply have it here in the states
But this has to be in there you have to have something like this in congress. It's not an amendment
You're not amending the agreement because this is taking place when the agreement has failed
When the agreement is being broken up when the agreement is dissolved what will happen
Well, I don't know how anybody can possibly complain about you cut. We choose. I just don't understand how anybody could complain about that
It's perfectly reasonable and the only other alternative into these kinds of things is basically out white war
And that's not going to go on when you have a situation like this
It there's no reason for but you have to have something that says the assets are going to get divided up
And so look if you don't want to participate with us in these amendments
Moving forward because we really want to try to fix this thing
We believe there's all these fundamental problems and blah blah and it can't work too weak and blah blah blah
Go down through all the different miscellaneous horseshit
If you road island and a couple other states if you just don't want to move forward with us with these other amendments
We've come up with that's fine. Then we are going to step aside
We are going to dissolve it for purposes of us and we are going to reform and
During that time we're going to have a division and if you don't want to join us in that time
Then we'll divide the things up like this and everyone will go on their merry way
And the fact that no part of this was ever discussed when this is very simple
If you can't even get agreement on the kinds of very simple amendments
I'm talking about that continue to maintain the power in the states to a maximum extent possible
And keep the federal government from growing and becoming independently sovereign over the states
If you can't even get agreement like that from the states the absurdity of believing that there was
A unanimous ratification of this holy phony baloney constitution that completely destroyed the state's abilities to do anything
Well, then the exposure of the fraud would be very clear
And this is why you could never have a real constitutional convention that talked about some amendment possibilities
Because as soon as you see that the parties came and agreed about amending the thing in very simple ways to supposedly solve
These huge problems that exist
But they can't agree to create this entirely new government that completely and totally
Eviscerates their power and protections. That doesn't make any sense. That doesn't make any sense
Everybody can see that doesn't make any sense. And so that argument can never be had
And that's why the convention had to be this faked up event where nothing comes out the other side with regards to possible amendments
And everyone just has to stick with this narrative about how it was failing couldn't work is too weak
Couldn't be fixed. It was hopeless. There's infighting was about to collapse blah blah blah blah blah
Anyone who digs into it sees no part of that's true. The problem is there was no money
There was no money not because we didn't have a strong federal government executive and judiciary and all this other stupid crap
Is failing it was broke because everybody was broke because it'd run up this absurd debt. That's it
That's absolutely it and it's true. There may be additional things you might want to go in there and add another amendment here or there
As i've said this show is not intended to be a comprehensive review that replaces this or that
I'm just showing you that
The idea sitting down and trying to come up with some basic solutions that we could potentially amend this document and continue to run on
Is hardly beyond reach. It's really not that complicated
Any parties who couldn't legitimately agree about the kinds of things i've proposed here to fix these so-called problems
They're not actually interested in fixing. There's something else going on
If there's one thing i know after 35 years of practicing laws
If you really want to reach agreement because people are actually discussing real problems. They actually have they don't have hidden agendas
It's really not that difficult to reach agreement with people who want to be reasonable and want to do business
If you have people with secret agendas, which is most of the time
Well, then you're never going to reach agreement
You're going to have this endless arguing and fighting. They're going to raise all these things that don't make any sense
Well, of course, you're going to okay. Well, you can't do anything about that
Nothing about creating a federal government makes that go away. It just transfers all the power up to these other people who are untouchable
That's all it does
But you can see these simple
Suggestions that would have addressed all of these issues that were supposedly out there. Certainly
It's worth trying. Let's see if we put this in there and the government starts getting its share of money
Doesn't have to ask we have a method to enforce it on the states for other areas
We are controlling these supposed big tariff fights all the time. Okay. Well, that was all the fighting that was going on
It really was all the fighting if you want to add some additional amendments later about land or something
Okay, we can talk about that. Let's let's go ahead and agree to this
Let's run with this for a year or two
Maybe a couple years to see if there's still problems. There are then we'll you know, we'll revisit it
That's what you do in a real situation
That's how a legitimate dispute is
Mediated how parties who are actually acting good faith do as I've showed you again and again
The only real interest here are the states and the people the federal government has no interest
The states have no interest in creating a federal government
At best the states have an interest in solving these so-called problems and maintaining their power and maintaining their
Independence well my suggestions do all those things inside that articles of federation
And that's why I read the entire articles when we went over and whatever was couples different shows two or three shows something like that
Just to show people the articles are great and most of the stuff they say about it's not true
Oh, there's no way to resolve disputes. There was a way
There was a very simple way binding arbitration 10 times better than federal courts 10 times better
No absurd procedure and rules and evidence all this stupid crap
Outside the state's control it's just a binding arbitration same way you would like to have it
You get a dispute with somebody you'd love to okay binding arbitration
We get to agree to the arbitrator will go have our thing heard and that's it. Okay, it's fine
The main stuff is all solved by mine and you have to have
This provision in there where if you can't get agreement on these amendments
Okay, well then this ain't gonna work if we can't get agreement about even these basic amendments moving forward
Then we need to all go our separate ways in certain ways and we'll break it up in certain stuff
And you guys can be one way and we'll be the other
And we got to have a way to divide up assets and liabilities and things like that
And we cut you choose is always the most reasonable and it just prevents any kinds of problems and objections about
Unfairness they just go away. I just I've never seen a real legitimate fight over we cut you choose and you can see why
You know, if you've got just like a pie and you're just going to divide up the portion
Well, if I'm going to cut the portions and you're going to get to choose first of which portion you take you're going to be careful
If it's anything you're going to be careful that you'll be happy with whichever side you get
That's the nature of it
and
Because I'm trying to show people here that the idea that these were just
impossibly complex systems that could never be solved without this sort of
Madisonian horseshit with montescue and lock and all these federalist papers about how brilliant they need to do this and the government that
This theoretical discussion this why don't we deal with what we have?
We've got to work in government seem to work fine. We've got a couple of areas that people claim we're having problems with
Let's fix them. Let's go ahead and amend a few things here and there and that's it
We needed kind of an executive doing more stuff. Okay, fine
Let's bump up this committee make it a little stronger make it still responsive
The states can still control it and whatever it's doing everyone will be happy with if it gets out of control bam
Instantly we got it controlled. That's it. So
I hope people see how clear this is because the next time I make a show which we're getting to the end of this entire
Series the next time I want to show you how even if we'd gotten this piece of shit
There were simple things we could have had in there and of course we don't have drafts of it
We don't have any new drafts. We don't have any alternatives. We don't have any suggestions that were kicked out
We don't have anything it's presented as a fate of complete take it or leave it
That's it shove down your throat and I want to show people that if it would really been negotiated
If people were really sitting in that convention for a long time arguing negotiating
There would have been all sorts of things suggested and I've got a quite a few of them
And it's not like there's a hundred things that need to be done
I've got like 10 or 11 things and if you put those in there and changed them
Even if you want to keep this federal judiciary and executive power and the senate and the house and the taxing authority
And all this other crazy stupid shit for supremacy clause
You want to have all those things in there?
There are certain ways you could have easily continued to maintain the state's authority and power and make the federal government ultimately
Dependent upon the states and responsive to them that it would have all the abilities that we're told we needed to go out there and do this
And do that. Okay. It had all those things, but ultimately the states would hold the power
And there were very simple ways to do that and again that was never ever
Included and we're never going to get any discussion about that because the constitution is the most brilliant document ever written
And it saved the union and it's a freedom machine and blah blah blah blah blah
And the arts confederation were failing and couldn't work and never could work and they're far too weak and everybody knew it
And they were taking bets on what it would fail and blah blah blah. This is the narrative everybody's in
And like I said, have I gotten every single thing or they're maybe there are I don't know
They don't matter to me because the evidence is so overwhelming
It's so overwhelming
altogether
and so
I hope that this show gives people an idea of
the absurdity of the official narrative and how it locks people in to
A mindset that prevents anybody from seeing the simple things I'm talking about and I'm just amazed at how
phony baloney the entire thing is the more I've looked into it and thought about it. So
Okay, that's all I really wanted to say about it. I hope people enjoyed that show
I hope it makes people think I hope it opens their mind
As I've said, I will say one more time that those are not absolutes and not perfect solutions
There's things you can negotiate in there
But the the general structure is sufficient to be able to negotiate
Some fine details here and there about some of what some of my complain about and it provides a generalized solution
It really does it's certainly worth trying and then saying, okay, if you run with it for another five years or 10 years
It's still not working. Okay. We could change it again or whatever. Maybe
Finally, we're just going to have to go our separate ways or whatever. I don't know
But you can see the the thinking so
Okay, if you want to follow me, you can I'm legal man at us crime review on twitter
Thank you everybody in patreon. I hope you guys have enjoyed this series
Like I said, I think I've probably got one maybe two more shows are so left on this and that's about it
But I think it's been very enlightening as a series and I I hope people have enjoyed it
It seems like people have enjoyed it. I know I enjoyed actually finding out like I said, I've never even come across a
Website about this and I've done so much research in so many different areas and some of everybody I've known
Just such an amazingly airtight overton window. They've got everyone in on this
I hope people have found value in this series
And so thank you for everybody in patreon. I appreciate you guys
And of course Barnum world's out there. It looks like it's getting a little bit more activity
I was noticing it was moving up by about a thousand
Roughly a thousand a day or every day and a half and then night apparently must have gone on show or something
It kicked that up a little bit more. So that's good. Like I said, there's literally no
Barrier to having this thing go viral at any time because it's completely free and it's just out there
And I know I've enjoyed it and I hope people who contributed to it and made it possible
Think they got value out of the production and they liked the job that Andrew and I did on the movie
And you know, it's something that can be enjoyed forever now. It's really kind of timeless
Really is so thank you everybody who contributed there and beyond that. I don't have anything else. I'm gonna go ahead and wrap it up
You guys have been a great audience as usual. Everybody. Have a nice night or day wherever you are
Take care
You