I haven’t received a lot of input on this amendment thing, but I thought of something I believe I overlooked. I figured I’d post about it both to invite further commentary and to illustrate for any leaders or thinkers the kind of foresight, imagination, knowledge and mental effort that goes into drafting laws, especially constitutional laws. For me, at least, it’s fairly grueling and I’m prone to mistakes, which is one of the reasons I appreciate input.

Anyway, here’s the problem.

The amendment provides that the US dollar will be returned to a gold standard at what are very elevated dollar price levels from where they have ever been before ($27,300/oz or more). If this amendment idea were to gain any steam (I know, unlikely, but bear with me) there would be a temptation for those with purchasing power to accumulate a lot of gold to preserve their position in the post amendment world.

Some people have come by their purchasing power in a fair fight, as it were. Others, however, have profited only by virtue of the very game rigging this amendment is trying to address.

Happily, this latter group is easily identified: the financial and government class. Moreover, because they have a proven history of taking unfair advantage through rigging the game, they are the group that will most likely exploit any advantage the interregnum provides.

Accordingly, if possible their ability to do that should be blocked. Thus, the following should be added to the amendment, which is already lamentably long, but nevertheless:

“All gold: 1) acquired by primary dealers of the Federal Reserve or their officers, directors or executive employees (as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury) on or after September 1, 2008; or 2) acquired by employees of the United States on or after September 1, 2008 shall be forfeited to the United States and surrendered to the Secretary of the Treasury within thirty (30) days of the ratification of this amendment, and the Secretary shall include such gold in determining the definition of the dollar under section 7. Willful refusal to surrender said gold by said date by any citizen of the United States shall constitute treason against the United States.”





The current section 7 is now designated section 7(a). The above paragraph will constitute section 7(b).

Now, I picked September of 2008 because that’s the month the bailout was proposed after TSHTF. Any positioning in precious metals by the relevant parties around or after that time would be blatant immoral hedging against a mess they themselves were intimately involved in creating. One of the most important principles of law and equity is that people should not profit from their own wrongdoing.

This restriction would apply only to the designated parties, and the Secretary of the Treasury has some discretion in this regard. Maybe a Bank of America teller shouldn’t be barred from positioning himself in precious metals. But anyone with a responsible position at that bank should be. This is another one of those situations where the best you can do is leave it to the Secretary. If he acts in bad faith you know what happens under section 10.

Who wants that job? Not me.