0 votes

South Carolina Lawmaker Seeks to Ban FRN's


South Carolina Rep. Mike Pitts has introduced legislation that would mandate that gold and silver coins replace federal currency as legal tender in his state.

As the Palmetto Scoop first reported, Pitts, a Republican, introduced legislation this month banning "the unconstitutional substitution of Federal Reserve Notes for silver and gold coin" in South Carolina.

In an interview, Pitts told Hotsheet that he believes that "if the federal government continues to spend money at the rate it's spending money, and if it continues to print money at the rate it's printing money, our economic system is going to collapse."

"The Germans felt their system wouldn't collapse, but it took a wheelbarrow of money to buy a loaf of bread in the 1930s," he said. "The Soviet Union didn't think their system would collapse, but it did. Ours is capable of collapsing also."

The lawmaker believes that a shift to an economy based on gold and silver coins would give the state a "base of currency" should that collapse come. As one expert told the Scoop, however, his bill would likely be ruled unconstitutional because it "violates a perfectly legal and Constitutional federal law, enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, that federal reserve notes are legal tender for all debts public and private."

In addition, since gold and silver regularly fluctuate in value, they could not easily function as stable currency.

But Pitts maintains that his state is better off with something he can hold in his hand and barter with as opposed to federal currency, which he described to the Scoop as "paper with ink on it." He says he resents what he considers the federal government's intrusions on states' rights.

Though he did not offer a timeframe, Pitts told Hotsheet that he anticipates a nationwide economic collapse "if our federal government continues the course it's been traveling under the previous administration and this administration."

My question is, is this a GOP convert or was he with us from the beginning?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It is unlawful

to pay a debt with a debt. It is in either the USCode or another code, I just can't recall where.

Gene? you usually have this at your fingertips.

Phil. 4:13

great news!

http://www.indianahonestmoney.com/index.php?option=com_conte... IN,
http://www.constitutionaltender.com/ GA .
http://goldmoneybill.org/ NH.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92000 MT.
I guess it’s contagious. Some call it economic freedom others just call those people names and wants to let the “Hopey Changy” thing take care of itself. What lunacy is that?
A snippet from the federalist Economics brief by Dr. Edwin Vieria
The fundamental reason for the involvement of the United States in the present
day crisis of international banking is the existence and operations of the domestic
corporative-state banking-monopoly known as the Federal Reserve System—and in
particular, the essentially unlimited politically uncontrollable license Congress has
extended to that System to generate Federal Reserve Notes: the legal tender paper
tokens, irredeemable in silver or gold coin or bullion, that today function as this
country’s fiat currency. At the very center of the international banking-crisis are the
leading private banks comprising the Federal Reserve System At the very center of the
United States’ own chronic domestic monetary crisis is the Federal Reserve System.
Therefore, not surprisingly, the United States finds itself swept up in the flood-tide of
international monetary catastrophe or, perhaps more properly, jettisoned into the
maelstrom by the very “money managers” who caused the crisis in the first place.
However, from the perspective of United States law (with which this monograph
is primarily concerned), the crisis of international banking is irrelevant to the monetary
problems besetting this country. To be sure, the Federal Reserve System and the
irredeemable Federal Reserve Note are root causative agents of the present situation.
Both the Federal Reserve System and the irredeemable Federal Reserve Note are
unconstitutional—the one, because of its corporative-state structure, and the other
because of its irredeemability in silver or gold coin. (1) The United States government,

therefore, has no legal obligation and probably no legal authority, to mitigate the
international banking-crisis through any action that would support in any way the
viability of the Federal Reserve System or the value of the Federal Reserve Note.
Quite the contrary: The United States government has the highest legal obligation and
authority to disestablish the Federal Reserve System and to decry Federal Reserve
Notes as soon as possible.
The international monetary system is a disaster primarily because the United
States has long attempted to impose the Federal Reserve System’s debauched fiat
currency as a world-wide standard of value. The global scope of the disaster, however,
does not imply the necessity, let alone the practicality or even the possibility, of a global
solution. Before planning a “new economic order” for other nations, the United States
should first prove that it has the economic intelligence, political will, and (above all)
moral virtue and courage to put its own monetary and banking houses in order by—(i)
reinstituting as its domestic medium of exchange constitutional commodity money
comprised of silver and gold coins; and (ii) reforming domestic banking-operations by
strictly regulating or (better yet) abolishing entirely the fractional-reserve system.(2) If the
United States can restore sound money to its own citizens before the collapse of the
international banking-establishment not only will it weather the economic and social
storms that collapse inevitably will cause, but also its example will stimulate other
nations to resurrect their own stricken economies on the basis of intelligent principles,
rather than simply to reinstitute in a new guise the same fallacious ideas about money
and banking that led to the present catastrophe.
The unanswered question though is: “How can the United States restore a
domestic system of sound money?” The solution to this problem requires analysis of
three issues:
(i) why this country now has a system of unsound money;
(ii) whither this system will lead if permitted to operate unchanged; and
(iii) whether a legal means exists to transform it.
Llook up Federalist Economics and try to follow it…….
(1) 31 U.S.C. § 5101 (emphasis supplied). See Act of 2 April 1792, ch. XVI, § 95 1 Stat. 246, 248.
(2) 31 U.S.C. § 5103.
(3) Use of the modifier “supposedly” is necessary, because not everything that Congress may declare by statute to be “money”
may qualify as the “Money” Congress may “coin” or “borrow” under the Constitution. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 2
and 5.
Page 102 of 103
(4) 12 U.S.C. § 411.
(5) 31 U.S.C. § 5101.
(6) See Hewitt-Donlon Catalog of United States Small Size Paper Money (M. Hudgeons ed., 4th ed., 1979), at 66-153.
(7) The adverb “explicitly” deserves careful attention, because no matter what FRNs do not state on their faces, they are required
by law to be “redeemed in lawful money”. 12 U.S.C. § 411.
(8) 31 U.S.C. § 5112(a)(1-4).
(9) 31 U.S.C. § 5112(b).
(10) One half dollar equals five dimes. One half dollar equals two quarters. And one quarter equals two and one-half dimes.
(11) 31 U.S.C. § 5112(a)(7-10).
(12) Based on this set of coins, a “dollar’s”- worth of coined gold is one-fiftieth of the weight of the “fifty dollar” gold coin (”33.931
grams”), or 0.679 grams.
(13) 31 U.S.C. § 5112(e).
(14) 31 U.S.C. § 5119(a) (emphasis supplied).
(15) 31 U.S.C. § 5116(a)(1)
(16) 31 U.S.C. § 5116(b)(1)
(17) 31 U.S.C. § 5116(b)(2)
(18) 31 U.S.C. § 5119(a).
(19) Eg., 2 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (5th ed. 1891), § 1335, at 211 & n.2.
(20) See, e.g, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 425-33 (1819).
(21) L. von Mises, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics (3 rev. ed. 1963), at rd 203-04, 351-52, 41 1. See also 1 M. Rothbard,
Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles (1 970), at 237.
(22) See An Act for ascertaining the rates of foreign coins in her Majesty’ plantations in America, 1707, 6 Anne, ch. 30, § I
(emphasis supplied in part).
(23) Cf NLRB v. Amax Coal Co., A Division of Amax, Inc., 483 U.S. 322, 329 (1981): “Where Congress uses terms that have
accumulated settled meaning under * * * the common law, a court must infer, unless the statute otherwise dictates, that
Congress means to incorporate the established meaning of these terms.”
(24) See Sumner, “The Spanish Dollar and the Colonial Shilling”, 3Amer. Hist. Rev. 607 (1898).
(25) Note 22, ante.
(26) 4 Journals of the Continental Congress, 1777-1789 (W. Ford ed. 1905), at 381-82; 5 id at 725.
(27) Propositions respecting the Coinage of Gold, Silver, and Copper (printed folio pamphlet presented to the Continental
Congress 13 May 1785), at 4, 5.
(28) NOTES on the Establishment of a MONEY MINT, and of a COINAGE for the United States”, The Providence Gazette and
Country Journal, Vol. XXI, No. 1073 (24 July 1784), in Propositions, ante note 27, at 9, 10.
(29) Id. at 11, 12.
(30) Id. at 12.
(31) 28 Journals of the Continental Congress, ante note 26, at 355, 357.
(32) 29 id. at 499-500.
(33) 30 id. at 162-63. After ratification of the Constitution, Congress made a more accurate determination of the value of the dollar,
setting it at 371.25 grains of fine silver (as described post).
(34) 31 Journals of the Continental Congress, ante note 26, at 503.
(35) Hamilton’s observation that it requires no “argument to prove that a nation ought not to suffer the value of the property of its
citizens to fluctuate with the fluctuations of a foreign mint, or to change with the changes in the regulations of a foreign
sovereign” should serve as a warning to those who rashly advocate a new “one-world” currency-system in which the
United States would participate.
(36) 2 The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (J. Gales compil. 1834), Appendix, at 2059, 2060, 2061.
(37) Id. at 2061-63.
(38) Id. at 2064-65. This is the source of the (unfulfilled) modern duty of the Secretary of the Treasury “to maintain the equal
purchasing power of each kind of United States currency”. 31 U.S.C. § 5119(a). See ante, pp. 5-7.
(39) Appendix, ante note 36, at 2066, 2068, 2069.
(40) See Act of 2 April 1792, ch. XVI, §§ 14-15, 1 Stat. 246, 249-50.
(41) Appendix, ante note 36, at 2071-73.
(42) Id. at 2082.
(43) Act of 2 April 1792, ch. XVII I Stat. 246. See the Appendix hereto.
(44) § 9, 1 Stat. at 248.
(45) § 20, 1 Stat. at 250.
(46) § 91 1 Stat. at 248.
(47) See U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 5.
(48) Coinage Act of 1792, § 9@ 1 Stat. at 248.
(49) § 11, I Stat. at 248-49.
(50) § 16, 1 Stat. at 250.
(51) Vol. 7, “Dollar” (1963 ed.) at 558.
(52) For the correct interpretation of the Act, see, e.g., A. Hepburn, History of Coinage and Currency in the United States and the
] Perennial Contest for Sound Money (1903), at 22.
(53) Coinage Act of 1792, §§ 14-15@ 1 Stat. at 249-50.
(54) § 19, 1 Stat. at 250.
(55) Section 11 of the Coinage Act was clearly constitutional in 1792, representing as it did a reasonable means of “regulat[ing] the
Value” of gold coins as against the (silver) “dollar” in an era in which financial data were uncertain and difficult to
communicate with dispatch. Today, such a statutorily fixed exchange-ratio for the precious metals would be nreasonable.
Given the technical sophistication of existing financial institutions, Section 11 of a parallel modern act ought to read,
perhaps, “That the proportional value of gold to silver in all coins which shall by law be current as money within the United
States, on any particular day or days, shall be the proportion between pure gold and pure silver, according to quantity in
weight, existing at the beginning of the business day or days in [here Congress would identify a financial market], or, if
the particular day or days is or are not a business day or days, on the last preceding business day or days.” Cf H.R.
6054, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. (1982), § 4.
(56) See U.S. Const. art. 1, § 10, cl. 1.
Page 103 of 103
(57) 1 Stat. at 248, 249, 250-5 1.

Freedom is NOT free!