A Layman's Understanding of Debt
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 00:28
VIEWED: 4246
PAGE 4 of 7
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
" No State shall enter into any Treaty , Alliance , or Confederation ;
grant Letters of Marque or Reprisal ; coin Money ; emit Bills of Credit ; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts ..."
They weren't referring to 'state' meaning 'country', they were talking about the STATES that comprised the United STATES. They didn't want each STATE issuing money which might or might not have value to a greater or lesser degree than that of other STATES and which would exist in competition with the national currency. Hence, they set restrictions on what STATES could mint as currency.
When it came to the federal government, I see no such restrictions. They reserved for the federal government the right to define national currency.
That's an Absurdity...
If the definition of the National money is one thing , but no State may make any Thing but gold and silver Coin
a Tender in Payment of Debts , then the National currency would be completely useless...
Once Again , reference the Coinage Act of 1792 for the specific Meaning and Intent of the Government regarding what comprises a Constitutionally-Lawful 'Dollar'...
It's a Specific Quantity of precious Metals...
The so-called 'Federal Reserve Act' is repugnant to the letter and Intent of the Constitution , and therefore invalid from its inception...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures ..."
It looks to me like the Feds get to define how much it's worth.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures ..."
It looks to me like the Feds get to define how much it's worth.
Not 'the Feds'...
The Congress...
That's why the Coinage Act (1792) was enacted virtually contemporaneously with the U.S. Constitution...
It Defined the specific Weights and Measures of the precious Metals that comprised a Lawful 'Dollar'...
Up until that time , in the Colonies , and in the subsequent States , the Spanish 'milled dollar' was the accepted currency...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There is No Branch of the U.S. Government , authorized by the Constitution , known as 'the Feds'...
Rather , the Constitution authorizes the duties of the Legislative , Executive , and Judicial branches of government within the United States...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If you want to be tedious, I was referring to the federal government, as opposed to state governments.
But yes, CONGRESS gets to pass ordinary federal LAWS (not Constitutional amendments) defining the value of money, or delegating that function, as it chooses.
There is NO 'constitutional' definition of the national currency.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If you want to be tedious, I was referring to the federal government, as opposed to state governments.
There is NO 'constitutional' definition of the national currency.
Again , not being tedious , but IF there's a difference between the States' Lawful Money , (Gold and Silver Coin) , and the Federally-defined Lawful Money , then there exists a Legal Conundrum...
No such divergence was intended , or enacted , by the Federal Constitution...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But yes, CONGRESS gets to pass ordinary federal LAWS (not Constitutional amendments) defining the value of money, or delegating that function, as it chooses.
Congress may NOT Lawfully 'delegate' , abdicate , or abrogate , its Constitutional Duties...
Otherwise , the Constitution would have no force or effect...
You are either a friend of the Constitution , or you make yourself an
'enemy' of it , by definition...
That's why there's an Oath of Office , requiring the True Faith and Allegiance to it...
You either fully Support it , or you are its Enemy...
http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_Un
ited_States
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"but IF there's a difference between the States' Lawful Money , (Gold and Silver Coin) , and the Federally-defined Lawful Money , then there exists a Legal Conundrum..."
No.
Since the states have been bound to a fixed currency item the federal government gets to determine their value in relation to the federal currency - just like it gets to deterime the value of foreign currency, as written in the constitution. No problemo.
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Congress may NOT Lawfully 'delegate' , abdicate , or abrogate , its Constitutional Duties..."
Uhhmmm ... the constitution allows the congress
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
In other words, if they pass a law delegating the making and distribution of money, they've acted within their constitutional authority.
BTW, I find your arguments to be very limited in their Constitutional understanding.
Congress clearly has the Constitutional authority to determine the currency of the US AND to delegate or empower entities to carry out the task.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As usual , your 'opinions' are meaningless , and have no standing in the face of Facts :
...The Roosevelt Administration decided to implement a policy suggested by Professor George F. Warren of Cornell University.
This policy advocated controlling "inflation" (firmly defined by this time as "rising prices") by raising and lowering the "gold content" of the Dollar.
This policy was implemented, amongst many others, under the first big measure of the New Deal, the "National Recovery Act" (NRA). By January of 1934, the "adjustable Dollar policy" was an obvious and perceived failure, and it was dropped.
The NRA itself was declared Unconstitutional on May 27, 1935.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The NRA was overturned in May, 1935 when the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled in the case Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (295 U.S. 495, 1935), that the Act infringed upon states' authority, unreasonably stretched the Commerce Clause, and gave legislative powers to the executive branch in violation of the Nondelegation doctrine.
Moreover, the opinion fell back on the question of constitutional authority by stating, "extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional powers."
Plainly , there is precedent of long standing that Congress oversteps its bounds and violates States' rights , Nondelegation , and Separation of Powers doctrines of the United States Constitution , when it fails to uphold its duty to Coin Money and regulate the Value thereof...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME