the constitutionality of paper money

[dennis dujac]

Read "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins it is throughly documented.

read it, mullins has even less credibility than griffin

 

[Travlyr]

read it, mullins has even less credibility than griffin

Why are you here?

Can you understand how paper money eventually makes everyone's money worthless?

 

[dennis dujac]

Why are you here?

Can you understand how paper money eventually makes everyone's money worthless?

i'm here to debate issues that interest me

in regards to mullins, have you read 'the biological jew'?


how can the u.s. dollar be worthless when it is what gold salesmen accept in payment for purchasing their products?

 

[Travlyr]

i'm here to debate issues that interest me

in regards to mullins, have you read 'the biological jew'?

I haven't read it. What does that have to do with paper money being constitutional?

 

[dennis dujac]

I haven't read it. What does that have to do with paper money being constitutional?

the point is that mullins and griffin aren't credible, they're conspiracy theorists selling a bill of goods

 

[Travlyr]

the point is that mullins and griffin aren't credible, they're conspiracy theorists selling a bill of goods

Like I said, "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins is fully documented. He points the reader to his source of information. You can learn first hand and he has done the research for you.

So far, you are the one that is not credible.

Hypothetically, if in 1964 a man purchased one million silver dollars it would have cost him one million paper dollars. Today his one million silver dollars would be worth $40 million paper dollars. Today's paper dollars are worth less than they were yesterday and they are worth a lot less than they were 50 years ago and they will eventually be virtually worthless ... toilet paper.

 

[dennis dujac]

Like I said, "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins is fully documented. He points the reader to his source of information. You can learn first hand and he has done the research for you.

like he did research for senator joseph mccarthy?


mullins was discharged from his position at the library of congress after his book came out in 1952

he's known for faking, misileading and misquoting

source: Paul F. Boller, Jr. and John George, They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions, Oxford University Press (1989), p. 15.

mullins is responsible for tract titled, "A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century", which is a known hoax with no credible basis, although mullins offers up plenty of what he describes as "proof"

 

[Dr.3D]

the subject of article 1, section 10 is clearly 'powers prohibited of states', congress isn't a state


The United States Constitution prohibits states from declaring legal tender anything other than gold or silver but does not limit Congress' power to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts. Coinage Act of 1965, §102, 31 USCA §392; USCA Const. Art. 1, §10.




congress' power to make the necessary and proper laws comes directly from the constitution

So it was up to the states to tell congress they were not allowed to use anything but gold and silver as payment for debts?

Again, the states are not allowed to make anything but gold and silver a Tender in Payment of Debts. So I guess the states should have rejected the fiat currency mandated by congress.

Well actually, this is not how it happened.

It was progressiveness at it's finest. First the president confiscated all of the gold from the people and at that time, the currency was supposedly still backed by gold. Then as time went by, to keep the French to taking all of the gold from the U.S. the gold backing of the U.S. dollar was dropped by executive order of the president.

Insidious how it all came about isn't it?

 

[dennis dujac]

So it was up to the states to tell congress they were not allowed to use anything but gold and silver as payment for debts?

the constitution essentially says, states shall not make legal tender

The United States Constitution prohibits states from declaring legal tender anything other than gold or silver but does not limit Congress' power to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts. Coinage Act of 1965, §102, 31 USCA §392; USCA Const. Art. 1, §10.

Again, the states are not allowed to make anything but gold and silver a Tender in Payment of Debts. So I guess the states should have rejected the fiat currency mandated by congress.

no, the basic interpretation which makes sense, is that states can't create legal tender, only congress has that power

it would be absurd to constrict 21st c. states to using 18th c. gold and silver specie, when congress has legislated that u.s. dollars are legal tender for the nation

Well actually, this is not how it happened.

It was progressiveness at it's finest. First the president confiscated all of the gold from the people and at that time, the currency was supposedly still backed by gold. Then as time went by, to keep the French to taking all of the gold from the U.S. the gold backing of the U.S. dollar was dropped by executive order of the president.

Insidious how it all came about isn't it?

yep, history shows that volatile commodities took this country on some wild rides, thank goodness nixon acted posthaste and didn't wait around for those loafers in congress to handle it

 

[matt0611]

Congress only has the value to coin money.
Paper money is emitting bills of credit, the congress does not have this authority. Its pretty black and white in the constitution. Paper money is unconstitutional. Both backed and unbacked.


To coin at that time meant: "fashioning pieces of metal into a prescribed shape, weight, and degree of fineness, and stamping them with prescribed devices". That's straight out of the dictionary of that era.

Printing bills that could be exchanged for lawful money (which is what our federal reserve notes were at one time) is the power to "emit bills of credit".
The states are denied the power to print their own currency because they are explicity denied the power to "to coin money; emit bills of credit...".

The constitution does not give congress the power to emit bills of credit because it does not mention it under Article 1 Section 8.

Its important to note that the founders viewed "emitting bills of credit" different than "coining money". They are not the same thing. Legal money is only gold or silver. Hence "no state shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts"

To "regulate that value" (of money [which can only be "coined" not printed] and of foreign coin) consists of only the power of comparison and declaration of the money/coins.

The word regulate back at that time did not mean the same thing it does today.

Thus, under the power "To coin Money,” Congress has discretion to set the weight, purity, form, and impression of all silver and gold coins it mints. Whereas, under the power "To regulate the Value,” it has a duty to accurately determine the proportions of market value between the fixed "Money-Unit" (which is the dollar) and the coinage that it, and other foreign nations, mint.

The constitution mentions the word dollar as the unit of currency (which was already defined at the time of its writing). A dollar is a certain amount of grains of silver (derived from the spanish milled-dollar).

Thus, under the constitution the federal government has the power to coin "money" (gold and silver) and set their weights, and the states do not have the power to declare anything else as legal tender.

Paper money is immoral, unconstitutional, and bad economics.

 

[matt0611]

i've read the constitution and it doesn't say congress does not have the power to issue bills of credit




yes and the framers certainly did not intend to forbid the possibility of congress making the necessary laws to allow for paper money, just as they didn't intend to preclude congress from passing laws to create the air force

It doesn't have to say it. Congress only has the powers delegated to it by the Constitution.
All other powers are reserved for the states [unless forbidden] or to the people.
This isn't rocket science.

 

[dennis dujac]

Paper money is emitting bills of credit, the congress does not have this authority.

pretend i'm from missouri and show me exactly where the constitution says congress does not have the authority to emit bills of credit

 

[WilliamC]

show me where it says 'specie' in the constitution

The Congress shall have Power To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers

Printing paper money is neither a necessary nor proper Law with which to carry out the execution and power of coining money.

That was easy.

 

[matt0611]

pretend i'm from missouri and show me exactly where the constitution says congress does not have the authority to emit bills of credit

See my above post...

 

[dennis dujac]

Printing paper money is neither a necessary nor proper Law with which to carry out the execution and power of coining money.

That was easy.

except that the supreme court disagrees with it and has upheld paper legal tender for 140 years

president madison's actions also conflict with the idea that paper money is unconstitutional, i.e. - he approved of a $36 million paper money issue to help finance the war of 1812

many other founders were involved in legitimizing paper money, including washington, jefferson, monroe and etc

See my above post...

i saw it and there's nothing directly from the constitution, there

 

[matt0611]

except that the supreme court disagrees with that and has upheld paper, legal tender for 140 years

president madison's actions also conflict with the idea that paper money is unconstitutional, i.e. - he approved of a $36 million paper money issue to help finance the war of 1812

many other founders were involved in legitimizing paper money, including washington, jefferson, monroe and etc

Then the surpreme court is wrong.

The supreme court is not made up of gods.

Madison kinda betrayed the Jeffersonians after a few years.

The only way the 10th amendment makes any sense is with the limited declared powers interpretation of the constitution.

 

[matt0611]

except that the supreme court disagrees with it and has upheld paper legal tender for 140 years

president madison's actions also conflict with the idea that paper money is unconstitutional, i.e. - he approved of a $36 million paper money issue to help finance the war of 1812

many other founders were involved in legitimizing paper money, including washington, jefferson, monroe and etc





i saw it and there's nothing directly from the constitution, there

I paraphrased the 10th amendment for you.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

There, there's an exact quote.

There are certain powers delegated to the united states federal government. The power to print paper money is not one of them.

 

[WilliamC]

except that the supreme court disagrees with that and has upheld paper, legal tender for 140 years

You're right and they're wrong.

Which is why we need to elect Ron Paul and others like him so we can get rid of the current Supreme Court, either over time as they retire or hell if we get enough support in Congress and the White House remove the current justices due to treason or some such, I don't care.

They are part of the problem.

president madison's actions also conflict with the idea that paper money is unconstitutional, i.e. - he approved of a $36 million paper money issue to help finance the war of 1812

During a declared war Congress and the President do all kinds on non-Constitutional things, just look at Lincoln.

And I can see the logic in doing things during a time when a foreign country might be invading the USA with an Army that might just be unconstitutional as well, since if we lose then the Constitution is dead anyway.

many other founders were involved in legitimizing paper money, including washington, jefferson, monroe and etc

Well it was Hamilton more than any other Founder who wanted a strong Central Bank, but printing paper money with which to discharge it's debts invalidates the clear language in the Constitution about 'coining money' regardless of who may or may not have supported it.

Now, since you haven't brought it up yet, there may be an argument made for accounting purposes it is not necessary for the Federal Government to always be moving massive amounts of gold and silver from one place to another in order to do business, there is the idea of using other mechanisms to keep track of the actual transfer of wealth that is taking place. This obviously gets to the issue of a fiat currency versus a 100% gold/silver backed currency.

So long as I am free to take my paper money to a Federal office and exchange it for gold/silver/platinum/copper or whatever commodity it is based on, (edit: at a fixed rate) then that's a slightly different issue than fiat currency which is not accountable for anything if no one will take it in exchange for the commodity.

Try buying a $1 silver coin for a $1 Federal Reserve Note if you are confused about this.

 

[Acala]

pretend i'm from missouri and show me exactly where the constitution says congress does not have the authority to emit bills of credit

You claim to know the difference between plenary power and enumerated power yet you repeat this misleading question again and again. That's trolling. Negative rep.

For the readers at home, there is no real dispute that Congress was intended to have ONLY those powers specifically granted to it in the Constitution. In addition to the Tenth Amendment, the writings of the Founders were absolutely clear on the subject. This troll continues to imply that Congress has all powers not specifically restricted. This is false.

 

[Dr.3D]

You claim to know the difference between plenary power and enumerated power yet you repeat this misleading question again and again. That's trolling. Negative rep.

For the readers at home, there is no real dispute that Congress was intended to have ONLY those powers specifically granted to it in the Constitution. In addition to the Tenth Amendment, the writings of the Founders were absolutely clear on the subject. This troll continues to imply that Congress has all powers not specifically restricted. This is false.

Yep, his question should have been, 'pretend i'm from missouri and show me exactly where the constitution says congress has the authority to emit bills of credit'.