quote:

Originally posted by SiLveR_NrGy_985 actually yes its a cakewalk compared to the mass slaughters and death that occured for the G8 in Genoa italy couple years ago, check it out :

That is one epic riot.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT Ok, again, this means states may not accept anything but gold and silver as legal payment. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand... To coin money, not to be confused with, print money. Done. Anything else?

Seriously what is wrong with you people? Do you lack the education or not take the time to understand what you're talking about? If we even go by your ludicrous claims that the government should be confined to such a narrow, antiquitated scope of responsibilities according to the constitution (which would be a false claim even going by strict constitutional law), you guys are balls ass crazy.

I will try to outline ONE out of numerous issues of craziness. If you guys had your way, the Automated Clearing House payment system which is managed by the federal reserve would be abolished. In other words forget about making any transactions via the electronic payments network ... no debit card transactions, no payroll direct deposits, no social security payments, no direct debits of any kind, no business to business payments, etc, etc, etc ... I mean what fuck is wrong with you people? At least become marginally educated about the nonsense you're spouting.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

The Court argued with the doctrine of implied powers, stating that to be �necessary and proper� the Bank needed only to be useful in helping the government meet its responsibilities in maintaining the public credit and regulating the money supply. -- pkcRAISTLIN

My thoughts are derived from rulings by the Supreme Court. How is the Fed maintaining public credit, is it maintaining proper credit. Is the money supply reflective of true value, Congress determines that value, is the Fed able to verify Congress is correct?

quote:

Then Hamilton offered a proposed rule of discretion: �Does the proposed measure abridge a pre-existing right of any State or of any individual?� --pkcRAISTLIN

If Washington agreed because Hamilton described limits including and not limited to States Rights and individuals, then the Supreme court ruling never recognizes any bank responsible to the State or the individuals. Jefferson is correct in his argument that Congress will not know any limit to their power.

I just a dumb ass looking for the answers, thats all. But in America it always seems to be an argument of depredation, degradation and decline.

Last edited by jugheadsmith on Nov-23-2013 at 09:12