the constitutionality of paper money

[Danke]

Sorry, but when it comes to Federal power the burden is upon you to show where it is specifically authorized. That is the nature of a government of enumerated powers.

Yep.

 

[Acala]

disagree

you're mistaking politically biased rhetoric for reality

I think everything I have said can be substantiated with historical fact. Did you have any particular point you wanted me to unpack for you?

Also, please tell me how you can have the rule of law when the law is ignored or interpreted on the fly by those in power?

And let me ask you another question: why are you here? You do understand that above nearly all else, Dr. Paul is an advocate of following the Constitution as written? The "Champion of the Constitution" I believe is how he put it. While there is certainly room for varied positions on many issues under the liberty tent, I'm not sure that someone who thinks the Constitution is just an old piece of paper that has no binding authority and "didn't work" is ever going to be a part of this movement.

 

[dennis dujac]

if you read the constitution, you'll find that the 'air force' isn't expressly permitted, either


here are the facts of the matter

In Knox v Lee, 79 U.S. 457 (1871), the Court ruled that paper money was not unconstitutional: "The Constitution nowhere declares that nothing shall be money unless made of metal." The Court argued that the Congress can manipulate the value of precious metals to the point where it can be rendered as inherently worthless as paper (the Congress could enact a law that says that 10-dollar silver coins weigh 400 grains in one year and 500 grains the next, effectively devaluing the silver). The Court even noted the arguments of the Framers against "emitting bills," but wrote that the Framers (1) could not anticipate all governmental needs and (2) allowed the Congress to do what was necessary and proper to carry out its powers. In this case, that includes printing paper money.

So, said the Court, even though paper money is not expressly permitted by the Constitution, it is also not expressly forbidden, and in spite of the extra-constitutional opinions of some of the Framers, the ability to print paper money is a necessary and proper power of the federal government.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q154.html

 

[WilliamC]

if you read the constitution, you'll find that the 'air force' isn't expressly permitted, either

Should be a no-brainer to pass a Constitutional amendment allowing this.

Oops, I forgot, Congress has no brains.

Nevermind.

 

[Travlyr]

if you read the constitution, you'll find that the 'air force' isn't expressly permitted, either

here are the facts of the matter

In Knox v Lee, 79 U.S. 457 (1871), the Court ruled that paper money was not unconstitutional: "The Constitution nowhere declares that nothing shall be money unless made of metal." The Court argued that the Congress can manipulate the value of precious metals to the point where it can be rendered as inherently worthless as paper (the Congress could enact a law that says that 10-dollar silver coins weigh 400 grains in one year and 500 grains the next, effectively devaluing the silver). The Court even noted the arguments of the Framers against "emitting bills," but wrote that the Framers (1) could not anticipate all governmental needs and (2) allowed the Congress to do what was necessary and proper to carry out its powers. In this case, that includes printing paper money.

So, said the Court, even though paper money is not expressly permitted by the Constitution, it is also not expressly forbidden, and in spite of the extra-constitutional opinions of some of the Framers, the ability to print paper money is a necessary and proper power of the federal government.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q154.html

I don't know the history behind these cases, but I find it interesting that Knox v. Lee (1871) overturned Hepburn v. Griswold (1870) immediately after Justice Grier was replaced by Justice Strong and Justice Bradley was added to the court. It seems to me that somebody powerful didn't like the Hepburn v. Griswold decision which was decided by strict adherence to the constitution.

 

[dennis dujac]

Should be a no-brainer to pass a Constitutional amendment allowing this.

that's my point, the founders couldn't anticipate all governmental needs or new technologies

of course the air force has been authorized by congress, just as paper money has been approved

I don't know the history behind these cases, but I find it interesting that Knox v. Lee (1871) overturned Hepburn v. Griswold (1870) immediately after Justice Grier was replaced by Justice Strong and Justice Bradley was added to the court. It seems to me that somebody powerful didn't like the Hepburn v. Griswold decision which was decided by strict adherence to the constitution.

the 'legal tender cases' have been upheld by the supreme court for 140 years

wikipedia gives a good overview of these judgements and the background of them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Tender_Cases

 

[Acala]

if you read the constitution, you'll find that the 'air force' isn't expressly permitted, either


here are the facts of the matter

In Knox v Lee, 79 U.S. 457 (1871), the Court ruled that paper money was not unconstitutional: "The Constitution nowhere declares that nothing shall be money unless made of metal." The Court argued that the Congress can manipulate the value of precious metals to the point where it can be rendered as inherently worthless as paper (the Congress could enact a law that says that 10-dollar silver coins weigh 400 grains in one year and 500 grains the next, effectively devaluing the silver). The Court even noted the arguments of the Framers against "emitting bills," but wrote that the Framers (1) could not anticipate all governmental needs and (2) allowed the Congress to do what was necessary and proper to carry out its powers. In this case, that includes printing paper money.

So, said the Court, even though paper money is not expressly permitted by the Constitution, it is also not expressly forbidden, and in spite of the extra-constitutional opinions of some of the Framers, the ability to print paper money is a necessary and proper power of the federal government.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q154.html

That isn't a "fact" at all. It is an opinion. And it is an opinion on the limits of power of a political entity rendered by the political entity itself. It is absurd on its face to posit that a political entity should have the last word on the limits of its own power. So the opinion of the federal government as to the limits of its own power are of very little import.

 

[Acala]

that's my point, the founders couldn't anticipate all governmental needs or new technologies

And that is why they provided a procedure for amending the Constitution - a procedure that requires consent of the States.

Every point you have made has been refuted. You have demonstrated that you don't understand the difference between a government of enumerated powers and one of plenary powers. You have shown that you don't understand or respect the rule of law. You have shown that you don't understand the function of the Constitutional amendment process. You have failed to address any of the points raised against your positions. And now you are simply repeating yourself.

If your intent was to come onto this forum and dazzle the rubes with your rhetorical skills and show everyone how foolish they are for supporting the "archaic" ideas of sound money and the rule of law, you have utterly failed.

I would hope that you would open your mind to the possibility that Ron Paul and his supporters actually have something to say worth hearing and that you might learn a thing or two. It is a faint hope, but a hope nonetheless.

 

[dennis dujac]

That isn't a "fact" at all. It is an opinion. And it is an opinion on the limits of power of a political entity rendered by the political entity itself. It is absurd on its face to posit that a political entity should have the last word on the limits of its own power. So the opinion of the federal government as to the limits of its own power are of very little import.

the political entity you refer to is made up of the chosen citizenry of this country that represent the people

Every point you have made has been refuted. You have demonstrated that you don't understand the difference between a government of enumerated powers and one of plenary powers. You have shown that you don't understand or respect the rule of law. You have shown that you don't understand the function of the Constitutional amendment process. You have failed to address any of the points raised against your positions. And now you are simply repeating yourself.

i'm prompted to repeatedly post summaries by questioners posting arguments, and certainly i've addressed many points

show me what i said that is in conflict with understudying the constitutional amendment process

i know beyond doubt that i respect the rule of law; in regards to understanding, i prefer to base that on reason, rather than partisan points of view

on the issue of understanding the difference between a government of enumerated powers and one of plenary powers, i do know the difference

by definition, the current political system isn't given plenary powers, government's power is limited

And that is why they provided a procedure for amending the Constitution - a procedure that requires consent of the States.

the constitution is clear that states are not allowed to issue legal tender, and that is expressly forbidden

but, it isn't clear on paper money, since the framers were divided and decided not to forbid paper money

it's a reasonable interpretation of article 1, section 8 to allow congress to authorize paper money, especially when considering the disadvantages associated with carrying metal coins

 

[Acala]

I'm not sure this is worth it, but I'll make one more try,

the political entity you refer to is made up of the chosen citizenry of this country that represent the people

I have no idea what you are even trying to say here, but it is non-responsive.

show me what i said that is in conflict with understudying the constitutional amendment process

You have indicated that changes in circumstances that make provisions of the original Constitution obsolete should be dealt with by legislation or by ignoring the Constitution rather than by amending it. If you understood the structure of the Constitution you would understand that the procedure for dealing with changed circumstances is amendment, not ignoring the document.

i know beyond doubt that i respect the rule of law;

Your apparent belief that the Constitution should be ignored or castrated by extreme judicial "interpretation" is an complete abrogation of the rule of law.

on the issue of understanding the difference between a government of enumerated powers and one of plenary powers, i do know the difference

by definition, the current political system isn't given plenary powers, government's power is limited

Yes, but you have demonstrated that you don't understand that the Federal government is limited to ONLY those powers specifically granted. That is the meaning of "enumerated powers".

but, it isn't clear on paper money, since the framers were divided and decided not to forbid paper money

it's a reasonable interpretation of article 1, section 8 to allow congress to authorize paper money, especially when considering the disadvantages associated with carrying metal coins

It is clear that the Federal government was not authorized to issue bills of credit or anything other than coin. An understanding of the language and practices of the time makes clear that what was meant by coin was specie.

The Framers of the Constitution NOWHERE speak of any disadvantage of carrying coin. On the other hand, they speak at length of the ruinous nature of paper money and for that reason specifically prohibited the States from issuing any and declined to give the new Federal government any such power. Want the cites to the Federalist?

 

[WilliamC]

that's my point, the founders couldn't anticipate all governmental needs or new technologies

Which is why there is an amendment process.

of course the air force has been authorized by congress, just as paper money has been approved

Well allowing the army or navy to have it's own aircraft is one thing, establishing an entire new branch of the military is another.

Congress should have just created a simple worded amendment to allow for this and it would be completely constitutional.

I notice no such amendment has been made to allow congress to 'print' money as opposed to 'coin' it either.

Oh well, it's not as if they have any desire to follow the Constitution anyway...

the 'legal tender cases' have been upheld by the supreme court for 140 years
wikipedia gives a good overview of these judgements and the background of them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Tender_Cases

Whoopdedoo.

Yes that makes it 'legal' but it doesn't make it right.

There is no magic to the Supreme Court, it is corrupt as well.

Which is why we need Ron Paul or someone like him as President for at least 20 years, to replace big-government tyrants on the S.C.

 

[dennis dujac]

You have indicated that changes in circumstances that make provisions of the original Constitution obsolete should be dealt with by legislation or by ignoring the Constitution rather than by amending it. If you understood the structure of the Constitution you would understand that the procedure for dealing with changed circumstances is amendment, not ignoring the document.

i'm not ignoring the constitution, i'm pointing out how it's being followed reasonably, the original document gives congress all the power it needs in regards to creating money and making the necessary laws for its regulation

 

[Acala]

i'm not ignoring the constitution, i'm pointing out how it's being followed reasonably, the original document gives congress all the power it needs in regards to creating money and making the necessary laws for its regulation

The original document did not grant the power to issue bills of credit. When the government did so, it exceeded its powers.

The original document did not grant the power to make competing currencies illegal. When the government enacted legal tender laws it exceeded its power.

The original document did not grant the power to create a central bank with the power to issue bills of credit. When the government created the Federal Reserve it exceeded its power.

The original document did not grant the power to confiscate gold.

The original document did not grant the power to regulate banking.

The original document did not grant the power to create the FDIC.

The original document did not grant the power to fund the IMF or the World Bank.

And on and on and on.

 

[Seraphim]

Please read Acala's post directly below your own.

You are wrong.

Congress does not have the power - Constitutional power - to issue bills of credit. The power to coin specific types of money is not a free ride to make ANY type of money/currency, legally enforce it and shut down competing currencies. THAT is the current paradigm, whether you like it or not. They have legislated Bills the USURPE Constitutional power for chartered time frames, usually around 25 years. I.e Central bank creation.

That does not make it Constitutionally legal, let alone right/moral.

Yay for centralized counterfitting! Sarcasm.

i'm not ignoring the constitution, i'm pointing out how it's being followed reasonably, the original document gives congress all the power it needs in regards to creating money and making the necessary laws for its regulation

 

[dennis dujac]

Congress does not have the power - Constitutional power - to issue bills of credit.

show me where the constitution says congress does not have the power to issue bills of credit

 

[Seraphim]

It is in the writings because Congress is granted the power to COIN SPECIE and "all unlisted powers are delegated to the States and to the people".

The power to issue bills of credit is unlisted, and therefore Congress has no such power.

If you want to issue bills of credit - start a bank and see if people trust your business model.

show me where the constitution says congress does not have the power to issue bills of credit

 

[dennis dujac]

It is in the writings because Congress is granted the power to COIN SPECIE and "all unlisted powers are delegated to the States and to the people".

The power to issue bills of credit is unlisted, and therefore Congress has no such power.

If you want to issue bills of credit - start a bank and see if people trust your business model.

i want to see the exact words from the constitution that say congress does not have the power to issue bills of credit

 

[Seraphim]

Go buy a copy of the Constitution and read it yourself. If you can't even do that, I'm not even willing to debate you.

i want to see the exact words from the constitution that say congress does not have the power to issue bills of credit

 

[Danke]

Air Force? Oh boy. It is the military. Authorized in the Constitution? What next, we didn't have nukes back then, so now we can't have them? What about "smart" bombs?"

The Constitution was ratified in 1787, long, long before the advent of the airplane. It provides, specifically, for a navy and an army in Article 1, Section 8. Though they were aware of lighter-than-air flying craft, the Framers could not have reasonably provided for an Air Force. It should be noted at the outset that the Constitution does not provide, specifically, for the other uniformed services, the Marines and Coast Guard. The Marines, however, as an arm of the Navy, could be excepted; and the Constitution does provide for "naval forces," and the Coast Guard could thus be excepted. How, then, do we except the Air Force? The first way is via common sense — the Framers certainly did not intend to preclude the use of new technology in the U.S. military, and because of the varied roles of the Air Force, it makes sense for it to be a separate branch. The second (and less desirable) way is historical — the Air Force originated as the Army Air Corps, an arm of the Army, similar to the Navy/Marine relationship. Basically, unless your interpretation of the Constitution freezes it in 1789, the Air Force is a perfectly constitutional branch of the U.S. military.

 

[dennis dujac]

Go buy a copy of the Constitution and read it yourself. If you can't even do that, I'm not even willing to debate you.

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

Air Force? Oh boy. It is the military. Authorized in the Constitution? What next, we didn't have nukes back then, so now we can't have them? What about "smart" bombs?"

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