Where does it say that gold and silver are legal tender?

[TrueFreedom]

I am just wondering where it says that the Federal Government cannot make something other than gold and silver legal tender. I know the Constitution says the states can't make something other than gold and silver legal tender, but what about the federal government? It's not a state's right obviously because the Constitution gives the Congress the right to coin money, so where is the idea that the Federal Government can only make gold and silver legal tender?

 

[Richandler]

It says anything but gold and silver. In other words a state cannot have a law telling them to accept federal reserve notes as the federal government does. Because gold and silver were the legal tender of the time it was already the standard and it's implied that they shall not change from that standard.

Besides, why argue the point? The gold standard is better than the stardard we have right now, which is causing the economy to implode.

I could make your same arguement for the entire constitution. The first amendment is written for congress, but not any of the states. Yet several court cases say differently.

Let me add this too

"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

It doesn't not say the to print money and devalue the value thereof. Notice it also says to fix the stadard of weights and measures.

 

[TrueFreedom]

No it plainly says the states cannot MAKE anything but gold and silver legal tender. So the state can't say "ok we'll make paper dollars legal tender". But it never says that the federal government cannot.

Your argument that the Gold Standard is better is also flawed. Not even Ron Paul himself supports a return to the Gold standard, instead he wants other currencies to be competition to the paper dollar. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the federal government can't make something other than gold and silver legal tender.....

 

[murrayrothbard]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the federal government can't make something other than gold and silver legal tender.....

Well if you are going that route, where does it say that the federal government even has the authority to enforce legal tender laws??

 

[TrueFreedom]

Well if you are going that route, where does it say that the federal government even has the authority to enforce legal tender laws??

Federal government in the form of the courts would hold that it was not legal tender and not money at all.

As soon as the courts do so, the person making the money is engaging in a crime.

That is how the Federal government gets the authority to enforce. Your only argument is to go to conspiracy and argue the courts are corrupt. If you want to go that way feel free but it will hurt your credibility.

 

[jonahtrainer]

I am just wondering where it says that the Federal Government cannot make something other than gold and silver legal tender. I know the Constitution says the states can't make something other than gold and silver legal tender, but what about the federal government? It's not a state's right obviously because the Constitution gives the Congress the right to coin money, so where is the idea that the Federal Government can only make gold and silver legal tender?

The power has to be enumerated in the Constitution. Legal tender laws fall under property rights which are a State issue like land, contract and tort law. Why? Because they are remedies for contract and tort suits. However, States are restricted by the Federal Constitution in what they can make Legal Tender (Art 1 Sec 10).

The power is not granted to the Federal Government under Art 1 Sec 8. Clause 5 does grant the power to 'Coin Money' but that is only the physical act of stamping the coins. It also grants the power to 'Regulate the Value thereof' which refers to the definition such as a 'dollar' is 371.25 grains of .999 pure silver.

All of the names of national currencies (francs, marks, pounds, etc.) are a form of weights and measures. The contain 3 elements, (1) substance, (2) amount, (3) purity. In other words, silver, 1 gram, .999 pure.

There is a good discussion by Robert Landis, a Harvard Law School graduate, here around the middle of the video.

 

[murrayrothbard]

Federal government in the form of the courts would hold that it was not legal tender and not money at all.

As soon as the courts do so, the person making the money is engaging in a crime.

That is how the Federal government gets the authority to enforce. Your only argument is to go to conspiracy and argue the courts are corrupt. If you want to go that way feel free but it will hurt your credibility.

Huh? Where does the federal government get its authority to define legal tender? Are the courts not bound by the constitution?

 

[Eponym_mi]

At the time the Constitution was adopted, the States were prohibited from making anything but gold and silver legal tender. The same section prohibits states from issuing bills of credit (AKA paper money).

Gold and silver being the only legal tender within the States, this carries up to the federal level. Taxes were collected by the states (before income tax, when taxes were apportioned based on census) and payments made to the US Treasury. The US Treasury should therefore hold only gold and silver.

 

[fx57]

States are allowed to make legal tender laws, so the 10th amendment says that power is reserved to the states. The word "reserved" means only that states have that power and the US government does not.

In the late 1800's the Supreme Court disagreed, effectively saying the 10th amendment is meaningless and that the US government has all the "implied powers" it wants as long as they are reasonable. They trampled the 10th amendment.

 

[TrueFreedom]

Huh? Where does the federal government get its authority to define legal tender? Are the courts not bound by the constitution?

Article 3 gives the court the right to define it however they want, they decide how to interpret the law.

 

[murrayrothbard]

Article 3 gives the court the right to define it however they want, they decide how to interpret the law.

Interpret what law? How can they interpret a legal tender law if the congress has no authority to write one?

 

[TrueFreedom]

Interpret what law? How can they interpret a legal tender law if the congress has no authority to write one?

They have the authority to define what is legal tender because Congress coins the money. Therefore the courts define what the Constitution means via interpretation. That authority is given to them in Article 3. It's very simple. Those of you who claim that legal tender laws fall under property rights could not be any more wrong. No court would ever agree with that idea.

 

[Eponym_mi]

Article I - Section 10

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.

 

[fx57]

They have the authority to define what is legal tender because Congress coins the money.

What does legal tender (determining what can be used to repay a debt) have to do with coining money (stamping metal into round shapes)?

 

[TrueFreedom]

Article I - Section 10

You don't help your case in this. It says the states don't have those powers, those are powers that belong to the Fed Gov. Like issuing letters of marque and reprisal, that's Congress. Coining money. Congress. Oh and what does emitting bills of credit mean.....?

 

[TrueFreedom]

What does legal tender (determining what can be used to repay a debt) have to do with coining money (stamping metal into round shapes)?

You define legal tender wrong. Legal tender is not just used to repay debts. It is a means of exchange. Just like all the people who try to advocate a gold standard without realizing that gold has no intrinsic worth and is just a means of exchange.

 

[jonahtrainer]

You define legal tender wrong. Legal tender is not just used to repay debts. It is a means of exchange. Just like all the people who try to advocate a gold standard without realizing that gold has no intrinsic worth and is just a means of exchange.

You are wrong. Legal tender has nothing to do with a 'medium of exchange.' There is still 'freedom of contract.' Legal tender is a REMEDY for tort or contract law violations. This is simple first year law school stuff. It has taken on the additional role of being the medium of exchange for tax payments.

Gold has intrinstic value because it is a tangible asset and therefor money as opposed to fiat currency which is a money substitute. Both money and money substitutes can circulate as currency.

The purpose of currency is to provide a tool that allows for the mental calculation of value. As evidence of its intrinsic value Gold has proven to be the most reliable form of currency.

 

[Eponym_mi]

You don't help your case in this. It says the states don't have those powers, those are powers that belong to the Fed Gov. Like issuing letters of marque and reprisal, that's Congress. Coining money. Congress. Oh and what does emitting bills of credit mean.....?

Before the 16th amendment, revenue for the US Treasury was collected from the States. The US Treasury would not accept from the states anything other than gold and silver, because those were the only form of legal tender.

Bills of credit (AKA paper money).

You may be trying to imply that since the states were prohibited from doing these things, the federal gov't would be allowed. But there is no explicit grant for it to do so. Moreover, if the federal gov't were to coin anything other than gold or silver or issue bills of credit, since it wouldn't be legal tender in any state, where would it be spent?

I will grant you that one must think the revelant part of the Constitution through carefully in order to arrive at this conclusion. The language could be much more clearer. But I believe the intent of the framers was expressed...they didn't want paper money...just gold and silver.

 

[jonahtrainer]

Therefore the courts define what the Constitution means via interpretation. That authority is given to them in Article 3. It's very simple.

Wrong again. Please cite Article, Section and Clause for your assertion.

The principle of Judicial Review was hotly contested in the Constitutional Convention. John Marshall, through a series of opinions starting with Marbury v. Madison, grabbed the power of Judicial Review. Today it is taken for granted that the judiciary has that power. Dr. Vieira has written an excellent book titled Dethroning the Imperial Judiciary.

Regarding judicial review Thomas Jefferson, late in his life in a letter to Judge Roane, said, “The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson Volume III 317 (Thomas Jefferson Randolph ed., F. Carr, and Co. 1829) (1819).

 

[jonahtrainer]

The language could be much more clearer.

Anyone else find the irony funny?