|
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
I can tell. 
Funny that the part that you highlighted clearly states "COIN MONEY", which doesn't mean, running a printing press. |
of course that's what it means. what else does it mean? 
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
The Constitution, again, is regarded as one of the greatest documents ever written. A lot of it has to do with the fact that it was written in not so many words, when compared to constitutions from other nations, and also that it is very easy to understand. It wasn't written in any foreign language or in such a way that only a lawyer would be able to decipher it, as most legal documents are written. It was written in plain and simple English. So I do not concern myself with the fact that a Supreme Court had to translate it for those who did not understand it. As it was once said...
I think you would do yourself more good then harm by living by this quote, not only when interpreting The Constitution but many other things in life as well. |
im not sure i follow. are you saying that the supreme court interprets the constitution correctly or incorrectly for the people who "do not understand it", when they have ruled that the feds are allowed to print money and to have a central bank?
| quote: |
"The constitution does not give Congress the specific right to create a central bank. Unless the specific power is spelled out, according to a strict interpretive philosophy, then Congress does not have it. Therefore, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is unconstitutional. Moreover, paper money itself is unconstitutional for the same reason. Only gold or silver coin is permitted by the constitution."
The Constitutional Basis for Central Banking
First, the constitution grants the Congress the rights to regulate money. Specifically, it has the right to coin money and regulate its value. It is not clear from the constitution or the Federalist Papers what the authors meant by the term 'value.' Traditionally, it has meant the weight and metallic content of the coin. No one challenges this interpretation. On the other hand, the only relevant meaning of 'value' in the context of money is its value in trade, also known as its purchasing power. This a government cannot regulate merely by an Act of Congress. The government's only tool for regulating this latter value is altering the money supply.
Second, Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce. Banking and other financial services clearly involves interstate commerce as the courts have come to define it.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Congress has the right to make any law that is 'necessary and proper' for the execution of its enumerated powers (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18). A law creating a Bureau of the Mint, for example, is necessary and proper for the Congress to exercise its right to coin money. A similar argument may justify a central bank. It facilitates the expansion and contraction of the money supply and it serves as means to regulate the banking industry.
Is this a reasonable use of the necessary and proper clause? I do not know, but a test of its meaning came early. The history of central banking in the United States does not begin with the Federal Reserve. The Bank of the United States received its charter in 1791 from the U.S. Congress and Washington signed it. Secretary of State Alexander Hamilton designed the Bank's charter by modeling it after the Bank of England, the British central bank. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson believed the Bank was unconstitutional because it was an unauthorized extension of federal power. Congress, Jefferson argued, possessed only delegated powers that were specifically enumerated in the constitution. The only possible source of authority to charter the Bank, Jefferson believed, was in the necessary and proper clause. However, he cautioned that if the clause could be interpreted so broadly in this case, then there was no real limit to what Congress could do.2
Hamilton conceded that the constitution was silent on banking. He asserted, however, that Congress clearly had the power to tax, to borrow money, and to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. Would it be reasonable for Congress to charter a corporation to assist in carrying out these powers? He argued that the necessary and proper clause gave Congress implied powers -- the power to enact any law that is necessary to execute its specific powers. A “necessary” law in this context Hamilton did not take to mean one that was absolutely indispensable. Instead, he argued that it meant a law that was “needful, requisite, incidental, useful, or conducive to” the primary Congressional power which it supported. Then Hamilton offered a proposed rule of discretion: “Does the proposed measure abridge a pre-existing right of any State or of any individual?” (Dunne, 19). If not, then it probably is constitutionally proper on these grounds. Hamilton’s arguments carried the day and convinced Washington.
The Supreme Court had its say on the matter as well. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) the Supreme Court voted 9-0 to uphold the Second Bank of the United States as constitutional. 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. Chief Justice Marshall wrote, “After the most deliberate consideration, it is the unanimous and decided opinion of this court that the act to incorporate the Bank of the United States is a law made in pursuance of the Constitution, and is part of the supreme law of the land” (Hixson, 117). The Court affirmed this opinion in the 1824 case Osborn v. Bank of the United States (Ibid, 14).
Therefore, the historical legal precedent exists for Congress' power to create a central bank. It formed the Federal Reserve system in 1913 to perform many of the same functions as its predecessor. As before, the courts have agreed that a central bank, and the Federal Reserve in particular, is constitutional. |
this article continues on the issuing of paper money here:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHil.../flaherty3.html
___________________
Last edited by pkcRAISTLIN on Sep-27-2009 at 08:37
|
