Interesting little court case I came across....

[dross]

I just read that Congress first authorized paper money in 1792.

 

[Randall Flagg]

Where's Fletch when you need him?

The word designate does not mean accept. The states are prohibited from minting money. That right was reserved to the Federal government. If it's hard to understand that, maybe you shouldn't.

we know the states are prohibited from coining money, as it says that like 5 words before it states they can not desinagted anything but gold and silver as payment for debts, lets see what the courts say about it?

"Test Your Knowledge About Money" by Douglas V. Gnazzo, FSU Editorial 02/22/2008


The Constitution Speaks

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power:

�To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures�. [1]

�Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt.� [2]

The Supreme Court

Here is a ruling (1827) from the highest court in the land on the issue of legal tender as mentioned in the U.S. Constitution (in part):
"It declares that 'no state shall coin money, emit bills of credit, make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.' These prohibitions, associated with the powers granted to Congress 'to coin money, and to regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin' most obviously constitute members of the same family, being upon the same subject and governed by the same policy.

The prohibition in the constitution to make anything but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debts is express and universal. The framers of the constitution regarded it as an evil to be repelled without modification; they have, therefore, left nothing to be inferred or deduced from construction on this subject...

The next in order is, or 'make anything but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts;' this is founded upon the same principles of public and national policy as the prohibition to coin money and emit bills of credit, and is so considered in the commentary on this clause in the number of the Federalist I have referred to. It is there said, the power to make anything but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts, is withdrawn from the states, on the same principles with that of issuing a paper currency. All these prohibitions, therefore, relate to powers of a public nature, and are general and universal in their application and inseparably connected with national policy...

The prohibition is not, that no state shall pass any law, but that even if a law does exist, the 'state shall not make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender.' The language plainly imports that the prohibited tender shall not be made a legal tender, whether a law of the state exists or not. The whole subject of tender, except in gold and silver, is withdrawn from the states...

The second class of prohibited laws comprehends those whose operation consists in their action on individuals. These are laws which make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts...

In all these cases, whether the thing prohibited be the exercise of mere political power, or legislative action on individuals, the prohibition is complete and total. There is no exception from it. Legislation of every description is comprehended within it." [3]


The Supreme Court Again

"They appertain rather to the execution of an important trust invested by the Constitution, and to the obligation to fulfill that trust on the part of the government, namely, the trust and the duty of creating and maintaining a uniform and pure metallic standard of value throughout the Union. The power of coining money and of regulating its value was delegated to Congress by the Constitution for the very purpose, as assigned by the framers of that instrument, of creating and preserving the uniformity and purity of such standard of value...

If the medium which the government was authorized to create and establish could immediately be expelled, and substituted by one it had neither created, estimated, nor authorized one possessing no intrinsic value then the power conferred by the Constitution would be useless wholly fruitless of every end it was designed to accomplish. Whatever functions Congress are, by the Constitution, authorized to perform, they are, when the public good requires it, bound to perform; and on this principle, having emitted a circulating medium, a standard of value indispensable for the purposes of the community, and for the action of the government itself, they are accordingly authorized and bound in duty to prevent its debasement and expulsion, and the destruction of the general confidence and convenience, by the influx and substitution of a spurious coin in lieu of the constitutional currency.

Thus, from diverse pronouncements and opinions of the United States Supreme Court, a steady allegiance to the original and true intent of our founding fathers in reference to the monetary provisions of the U.S. Constitution can be discerned. In none of these various decisions is there any reference or allusion to any power of the States to enforce a tender in anything but gold and silver coin; further, there was no mention of any power in the federal government to permit, sanction or even compel the States to violate the constraint of Article 1, � 10, cl. 1 as such was an absolute and mandatory provision. Further, it was considered heresy to intimate any power in the federal government to issue any paper money. The adherence of the Supreme Court to the intent of the framers must surely have had a beneficial effect upon our nation.

Not only was the Supreme Court a guardian of the true intent of the framers during this period of time, the high courts of the various States of our Union were also as well. During the time prior to the Civil War, these state courts rendered opinions in many cases regarding the monetary provisions of the U.S. Constitution and all these decisions had one common theme: nothing but gold and silver coin could be a tender in payment of debts. Notwithstanding the imaginative schemes of men and governments calculated to find a way to circumvent Article 1, � 10, these state courts held fast and maintained their allegiance to the Constitution...� [4]

 

[Randall Flagg]

I just read that Congress first authorized paper money in 1792.

link?

 

[dross]

link?

I make no claims as to the accuracy, just internet surf-search. Here's one, I found some others. Just google history of paper money.

History of US Paper Money

 

[Randall Flagg]

I make no claims as to the accuracy, just internet surf-search. Here's one, I found some others. Just google history of paper money.

History of US Paper Money

Yes, we used gold/silver backed paper, which is different today then the fiat currency we use.

If the notes today were still backed by gold/silver then there would be no debate, as the states could trade in the paper notes for the exact amount of gold/silver.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

we know the states are prohibited from coining money, as it says that like 5 words before it states they can not desinagted anything but gold and silver as payment for debts, lets see what the courts say about it?

I don't even know where you are trying to take us on your little circular journey anymore. Can you help me out with the point you are attempting to make?

 

[Randall Flagg]

I don't even know where you are trying to take us on your little circular journey anymore. Can you help me out with the point you are attempting to make?

Sorry sir, i thought i was clear.

What amendment or law allows the states to accept anything but gold/silver as payment for debts?

 

[Eddie]

Sorry sir, i thought i was clear.

What amendment or law allows the states to accept anything but gold/silver as payment for debts?

There is this law:

United States Code: Title 31,5103. Legal tender | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[CarmelHP]

I don't even know where you are trying to take us on your little circular journey anymore. Can you help me out with the point you are attempting to make?

It's kind of like conversing with a tin-foil hat version of an Eliza program, isn't it?

 

[Randall Flagg]

There is this law:

United States Code: Title 31,5103. Legal tender | LII / Legal Information Institute

sorry, maybe people dont understand the constitution anymore.

When something is written in the constitution it takes an amendment to change it.

Thats why we have amendments, in order to change the constitution.

so if the constitution states that only gold/silver is designated for debts, there HAS to be an amendment changing that policy.

What amendment is it?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Dross, reference the story about Lincoln, dogs, and tails. It doesn't matter what you call it, a tail is not a leg and a group of people leaving a larger group to stand on their own in a governmental sense is still a country. Reference Taiwan and mainland China.

They formed their own government, elected Jefferson Davis as their President, and went to war to defend their right to do so. By any definition I know, that's a country. Countries have the power to create their own money and people have the right and power to do so as well (consider a barter system, for example: if I trade you a 1911 for an AR, have we not each considered the other's firearm to be of sufficient value for the trade and when you get down to it, what difference is there between that and "money" other than that the latter usually has some form of writing on it specifying who issued it and at what value?)

Articles of Confederation, Bill. Not the Confederate States.

Oops. Brain fart. Sorry. Conversation about the CSA is left in response to Dross but is irrelevant to this discussion of the period predating the US Constitution. As I understand it, the late-1700s Confederacy was intended to create many sovereign states, each with the full power of government, but loosely tied together in a voluntary association by which all agreed to work together for their mutual benefit, similar to NATO, etc.

Would not the problem of worthless instruments of currency have regulated itself? Would not the sole use of coinage or other items of intrinsic value (i.e. wheat converted to whiskey for storage, transport, and increased value at sale) have solved the whole issue?

That is, rather than jump to the present-day solution of government in control of this or that, allow the market to solve it's own problems... People would have stopped accepting the paper "money" and insisted on items of intrinsic value whether that was whiskey, wheat, gold/silver coin, horses, or whatever. Instead, they took the quick solution of "We'll take control of it and you just don't worry your little head about it." that eventually lead to Nixon's approval of leaving the Gold Standard.

(For those who don't know it, there was a time when those papers you carried in your wallet had real value:

Read the top and bottom center of that image:
Silver Certificate
Ten Dollars payable in silver coin to bearer on demand

wasn't just words. You could walk into a bank, hand them that, and walk out with ten dollars worth of silver coin... Not just silver colored, either, like today's nickles, dimes, and quarters are, but solid silver. That was back when our money had real value, not just numbers on a balance sheet.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Randall Flagg]

There is this law:

United States Code: Title 31,5103. Legal tender | LII / Legal Information Institute

Also where in the constitution says that congress can give it's power to coin money to a 3rd party(fed bank) and where does it state congress can make anything it wants as legal tender?

if this is true, could congress make shells legal tender as well?

Is this how short sighted you believe our founders to be?

 

[dross]

Dross, reference the story about Lincoln, dogs, and tails. It doesn't matter what you call it, a tail is not a leg and a group of people leaving a larger group to stand on their own in a governmental sense is still a country. Reference Taiwan and mainland China.

Blessings,
Bill

Not really arguing that point, just the legal position of the U.S., which I assume would be that anything the CSA did would be irrelevant to understanding the U.S. Constitution. I agree with your point, just discussing the issue a little more narrowly.

 

[Eddie]

sorry, maybe people dont understand the constitution anymore.

When something is written in the constitution it takes an amendment to change it.

Thats why we have amendments, in order to change the constitution.

so if the constitution states that only gold/silver is designated for debts, there HAS to be an amendment changing that policy.

What amendment is it?

You didn't ask for an amemdment. You asked for an amendment or a law. I answered your question. Read your own post.

 

[Randall Flagg]

Also where in the constitution does it state what the fed can designate for payment of debts?

oh thats right, it dont.

and powers not given to the fed in the constitution fall to the states correct?

I also see no where in the constitution that states that " the federal government/congress can designate anything in payments of debts, did i miss that part?

 

[CarmelHP]

Yes, we used gold/silver backed paper, which is different today then the fiat currency we use.

If the notes today were still backed by gold/silver then there would be no debate, as the states could trade in the paper notes for the exact amount of gold/silver.

Are you sure about that? In 1791, the First Bank of the United States, was chartered by Congress, the bill was signed into law by Washington, "Father of the Constitution" and chairman of the Constitutional convention, and it was agreed to by many of the same men in Congress who wrote the Constitution, (but what did they know?). It was authorized to issue banknotes up to it's $10 million capital limit, two million of which was provided by the U.S. Treasury (the remaining $8M was to be private investment, $2 million of which was bullion, the rest bonds and other paper scrip), but the U.S. Treasury had no money, so it borrowed $2 million from the First Bank of the U.S. in order to invest $2 million of capital in the First Bank of the U.S. You're arguing for a return to a purity that never was.

 

[Randall Flagg]

You didn't ask for an amemdment. You asked for an amendment or a law. I answered your question. Read your own post.

Sure, then let me anwser your post.

that law does not state that the states can/should or have to accept frn's as payment of debts.

In fact, that law does not say "state" in it at all.

And you still have not shown me the power given to congress to even MAKE that law, still waiting on that.

 

[Randall Flagg]

Are you sure about that? In 1791, the First Bank of the United States, was chartered by Congress, the bill was signed into law by Washington, "Father of the Constitution" and chairman of the Constitutional convention, and it was agreed to by many of the same men in Congress who wrote the Constitution, (but what did they know?). It was authorized to issue banknotes up to it's $10 million capital limit, two million of which was provided by the U.S. Treasury (the remaining $8M was to be private investment, $2 million of which was bullion, the rest bonds and other paper scrip), but the U.S. Treasury had no money, so it borrowed $2 million from the First Bank of the U.S. in order to invest $2 million of capital in the First Bank of the U.S. You're arguing for a return to a purity that never was.

Yes congress was allowed to issue credit on the us, backed by gold/silver, this is already widely known.

All you need to do is look up "what" a dollar is, and you will find that it is a weight of silver, not a worthless backed by nothing piece of paper.

The first bank was also disbanned after it's 20 year charter was up, for reasons that i've stated....i.e trying to get off the gold/silver standard.

 

[dross]

You're arguing for a return to a purity that never was.

Threadjack warning:

Oh, how often this is the case, with lots of subjects. Politics has always been politics, and politics is the pragmatic and personal grinding against the principle, and it always will be. Purity doesn't stand a chance, and it never has.

 

[Eddie]

Sure, then let me anwser your post.

that law does not state that the states can/should or have to accept frn's as payment of debts.

In fact, that law does not say "state" in it at all.

And you still have not shown me the power given to congress to even MAKE that law, still waiting on that.

Again, you didn't ask that question. Semper Fi pointed out that it was hard to understand what you were getting at and you asked what law or amendment required the States to take currency as payment for a debt. I posted such a law. Now you are changing the question. You didn't ask about authority to make the law. The statute doesn't say state, it says all debts. So if a state has a debt, currency could be used to pay that debt.

If you have a different question, go ahead and ask, but stop saying I don't understand something when I provide an accurate response to your question.