quote:

Originally posted by Communist What is implied by your post is a belief that anything but a gold standard, and the existence of a central bank, are unconstitutional. I'm just pointing out that that is flat out wrong. What it states is that the States don't have the power to make anything but gold and silver legal tender. But guess what!? The Federal government does have that power...

Correction - Please point me to the section of The Constitution that grants the power to coin anything but gold and silver?

Last edited by DOOMBOT on Sep-26-2009 at 21:28

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT Please point me to the section of The Constitution that grants that power to the Federal Government.

The Constitution does not forbid the Federal government from issuing paper currency or determining legal tender. Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18 (NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE) gives Congress the authority to make laws necessary in the execution of its Constitutional powers. One of those powers is the ability to "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof". The Constitution does not implicitly authorize the ability of the Federal Government to determine legal tender, but under the necessary and proper clause, they have the "implied power" to do so, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly determined as constitutional.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT Correction - Please point me to the section of The Constitution that grants the power to coin anything but gold and silver?

My previous post points out the constitutional power of the Federal government's ability to determine legal tender. The clause you repeatedly keep referring to with the "make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts" is a direct reference to STATES' rights, not the Federal government.

quote:

Originally posted by Communist The Constitution does not forbid the Federal government from issuing paper currency or determining legal tender. Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18 (NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE) gives Congress the authority to make laws necessary in the execution of its Constitutional powers. One of those powers is the ability to "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof". The Constitution does not implicitly authorize the ability of the Federal Government to determine legal tender, but under the necessary and proper clause, they have the "implied power" to do so, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly determined as constitutional.

quote:

Section. 10. Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Ok, again, this means states may not accept anything but gold and silver as legal payment.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand...

quote:

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To coin money, not to be confused with, print money.

Done. Anything else?

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT Ok, again, this means states may not accept anything but gold and silver as legal payment.

Where did you ever interpret the Constitution to mean this? You are clearly confused. I think I explained clearly and concisely what clauses mean, even providing Supreme Court cases setting the precedent of interpretation, and addressing specifically your incorrect interpretation of the Constitution. I can't do any more for you.

quote:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand... To coin money, not to be confused with, print money.

Are you so thick in your ideology that you can't understand any of the explanations I have provided to you?

quote:

Done. Anything else?

Hey, I can be a snoody prick too but I'm not am I? I'm trying to have a civilized debate here. But you seem to respond in one of two ways...

1) Rejection of critical analysis out of hand if it doesn't fit into a fundamentalist libertarian ideological framework.
2) Repetition of previously addressed arguments.

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...

quote:

It is every Americans' right and obligation to read and interpret the Constitution for himself.

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.

Last edited by DOOMBOT on Sep-27-2009 at 04:31

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

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.

If you'r referring to critical analysis, you might as well stop right there. You are the one wrongly interpreting the Constitution by confusing States' rights with that of the Federal government's and claiming the current system which has been repeatedly affirmed for the more 100 years to be unconstitutional. You'v made several claims in this thread, and I'v taken the time to answer them, and instead of providing a valid counter-argument, you'r simply repeating ones I have already addressed in full, backed up by Supreme Court precedents. It's cool to go against the grain and all, but at least be right about it.

Last edited by Communist on Sep-27-2009 at 08:41

those videos seem like down town Tehran not Pittsburg :S

They would not have gotten off so easy with me.

Did this thread seriously turn from a riot in Pittsburgh to about coin minting? Fail PDD.

___________________