Back to Blog

My Experience At The Utah State Legislature: Part Four, Legislation

 Read Part One Here
Read Part Two Here
Read Part Three Here
(This resolution was passed onto the full House for debate with a favorable recommendation on February 13, 2012)  Rep. Galvez is leading the way to a sound monetary system for Utah.
Representative Brad J. Galvez proposes the following substitute bill: JOINT RESOLUTION ON MONETARY DECLARATION
Chief Sponsor: Brad J. Galvez
Senate Sponsor: ____________
LONG TITLE General Description:
This joint resolution of the Legislature expresses support for the legal and commercial framework necessary to establish and maintain well-functioning, sound monetary
Highlighted Provisions:
This resolution:

  • expresses support for the legal and commercial frameworks that are conducive to constitutional, well-functioning, monetary systems and that feature gold and silver coin as natural, sound, circulating money, protect against any impairment of financial contracts, and ensure the security and equal protection of the people’s monetary holdings.

Special Clauses:
Be it resolved by the Legislature of the state of Utah:
WHEREAS, the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness require, for their full enjoyment, the indispensable right to honorably acquire, use, hold, and transfer property;

WHEREAS, money, serving as a medium of exchange, a unit of measure, and a store of value, facilitates the free exercise of inherent property rights, both individually and collectively;
WHEREAS, natural money arises from reliable value stemming from a medium’s intrinsic uniformity, divisibility, durability, portability, desirability, and scarcity;
WHEREAS, sound money promotes the general welfare of society by maintaining stable purchasing power over extended periods of time;
WHEREAS, circulating money only functions when the exchange of one form of legal tender for another is proportional between denominations, free of taxation and of debilitating regulation;
WHEREAS, government should never compel payment in a form of money inconsistent with the intent of transacting parties, except with respect to amounts directly payable to government itself;
WHEREAS, the extent and composition of a person’s monetary holdings should never be subject to disclosure or search and seizure except upon strict adherence to the safeguards of due process; and
WHEREAS, for a check and balance on congressional monetary authority, states retain the constitutional right to make gold and silver coin a legal tender for payment of debts:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of the state of Utah expresses support for the legal and commercial frameworks that are conducive to constitutional, well-functioning, monetary systems which feature gold and silver coin as natural, sound, circulating money, protect against any impairment of financial contracts, and ensure the security and equal protection of the people’s monetary holdings.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be sent to the President of the United States, the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the legislatures of all 49 other states, the Secretary of the United States Treasury, and to the members of Utah’s congressional delegation.
1st Sub. (Buff) H.J.R. 9 02-13-12 2:08 PM             HJR 9
Another bill I am working to support is HB 148 or TRANSFER OF PUBLIC LANDS ACT AND RELATED STUDY which is scheduled to go to committee on Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 8am.  If you want to come and experience this committee be at the Capitol no later than 7:30am and give me a call from the Capitol steps and I will get you to the meeting. (435) 590 1661.
One bill I am not happy with is SB 63, which promotes a national popular vote.  Read below for my take on this.
Why James Madison is Against a National Popular Vote
Madison’s Rule: Use factions to protect majorities and minorities from each other
The same logic that governs our Presidential electoral system, applies to many sports—which Americans do, intuitively, understand.
In baseball’s World Series, for example, the team that scores the most runs overall is like a candidate who gets the most votes.  But to become champion, that team must win the most games.
In 1960, the New York Yankees scored more than twice as many total runs as the Pittsburgh Pirates yet the Yankees lost the series, four games to three. And nobody walked away saying it was unfair.
Runs must be grouped in a way that wins games, just as popular votes must be grouped in a way that wins states. In this case the concept of majority rules applies to the states not the individual citizens.
In sports, we accept that a true champion should be more consistent than the Yankees were in 1960.
A champion should be able to win at least some of the tough, close contests by every means available—bunting, stealing, brilliant pitching, dazzling plays in the field—and not just smack home runs against second-best pitchers.
A presidential candidate worthy of office, by the same logic, should have broad appeal across the whole nation, and not just play strongly on a single issue to isolated blocs of voters.
Experts, scholars, and deep thinkers can make errors on electoral reform, but nine-year-olds can explain to a Martian why the Yankees lost in 1960, and why it was right.
And both are based on the same underlying principle.
As Madison, the chief architect of the Electoral College explained in Federalist Paper 10, “a well-constructed Union” must, above all else, “break and control the violence of faction,” especially “the superior force of an … overbearing majority.” In any democracy, a majority’s power threatens minorities. It threatens their rights, their property, and sometimes their lives. A well-designed electoral system might include obstacles to thwart an overbearing majority. But direct, national voting has none.  The Madisonian system, by requiring candidates to win states on the way to winning the nation, has forced majorities to win the consent of minorities, checked the violence of factions, and held the country together.*
Interestingly, with a National Popular Vote, even though a majority of voters (generally a minority of eligible voters – less than 42%) could choose the president, it could do so with as little as 20% of the states.  Democracy is always promoted as the champion of the majority but in reality it almost always serves the minority.

 These 10 states combined could elect the President of the United States

*Math Against Tyranny, Will Hively, Discover Magazine, November 1996 ￿￿￿￿

Share this post

Comment (1)

  • Forrest Brown

    I still do not understand the electoral college that well. Where’s the best place to read about it?

    February 20, 2012 at 9:56 am

Comments are closed.

Back to Blog