where in the constitution does it say Only Gold and Silver shall be Legal tender

It is still a confidence game !

Where are you going to get enough gold and silver to back a 17 Trillion dollar economy anyways ? You are just going to wind up sending it to a bunch of camel jockeys for oil and to the Red Chinese for Walmart crap anyways. I'm sure all the Mexicans here will be sending it to Mexico too.

I say give them paper (LMFAO)

The establishment is not the establishment for no reason (wink)

You've come to the best place to ask about this and we are more than happy to help.

Your questions alone show that you do not completely understand the Constitution. But, do not take that comment in a bad way - many of us have only learned these things recently or in the past few years as well.

"this doesn't prohibit the printing of unbacked paper money does it?"

and

"can anybody tell me where it says that the federal government cannot print unbacked paper money in the constitution?"

Notice that I put the words in your quotes, "cannot" and "prohibit", in bold. These are the key points in regards to your misunderstanding of the Constitution.

The Constitution is NOT a list of what the federal government cannot do. It is NOT a list of prohibitions on the federal government.

The Constitution IS a list of what the federal government is authorized to do, with ALL ELSE being DENIED to it by default. The absense of specific constitutional authorization for anything means that the federal government is denied/prohibited by default.

Amendments 9 & 10 are probably the clearest and most simple explanation of that point:

AMENDMENT IX
RIGHTS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT X
POWERS RETAINED BY THE STATES AND THE PEOPLE
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.

About the money issue, take the following from the Constitution:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: The Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.

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.

So, from that we have:

1. The federal government can coin money.

2. States cannot coin money.

3. States have the authority of determining what can be used as a tender in payment of debts by default, because the federal government does not have that specific constitutional authorization.

4. States are then prohibited by the Constitution from making any Thing but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debts. (Which also additionally proves that #3 is correct.)

Regarding your other question about the Federal Reserve... in order for the Federal Reserve to be legal, as per the highest law of our land, it MUST be specifically authorized by the Constitution. It is not, therefore it is forbidden by default.

By the way, in case you weren't aware - the Federal Reserve is our nation's THIRD incarnation of a central bank.

This is a grey area. The issue is whether it is necessary & proper for congress to do this while exercising their delegated power to borrow money, coin money, and regulate its value.

You don't need to find where in the constitution it says the federal government is not allowed to print unbacked paper. You must find where it gives the right to them.

ALL other rights belong to the people and the states.

Because FRN's are declared legal tender. Remove that and it is perfectly fine. And then we wouldn't be required to accept then as payment for our labor or anything.

FREEDOM

The Constitution doesn't use the phrase legal tender. It appears that the phrase itself was not coined until much later. Both a search of Noah Webster's 1824 Dictionary and Bouvier's 1854 Law Dictionary turned up nothing. However, the following definitions for Legal and Tender are taken from Bouvier's:

LEGAL. That which is according to law. It is used in opposition to equitable, as the legal estate is, in the trustee, the equitable estate in the cestui que trust. Vide Powell on Mortg. Index, h. t.

2. The party who has the legal title, has alone the right to seek a remedy for a wrong to his estate, in a court of law, though he may have no beneficial interest in it. The equitable owner, is he who has not the legal estate, but is entitled to the beneficial interest.

3. The person who holds the legal estate for the benefit of another, is called a trustee; he who has the beneficiary interest and does not hold the legal title, is called the beneficiary, or more technically, the cestui que trust.

4. When the trustee has a claim, he must enforce his right in a court of equity, for he cannot sue any one at law, in his own name; 1 East, 497; 8 T. R. 332; 1 Saund. 158, n. 1; 2 Bing. 20; still less can he in such court sue his own trustee. 1 East, 497.

TENDER, contracts, pleadings. A tender is an offer to do or perform an act which the party offering, is bound to perform to the party to whom the offer is made.

2. A tender may be of money or of specific articles; these will be separately considered. §1. Of the lender of money. To make la valid tender the following requisites are necessary: 1. It must be made by a person capable of paying: for if it be made by a stranger without the consent of the debtor, it will be insufficient. Cro. Eliz. 48, 132; 2 M. & S. 86; Co. Lit. 206.

3. - 2. It must be made to the creditor having capacity to receive it, or to his authorized agent. 1 Camp. 477; Dougl. 632; 5 Taunt. 307; S. C. 1 Marsh. 55; 6 Esp. 95; 3 T. R. 683; 14 Serg. & Rawle, 307; 1 Nev. & M. 398; S. C. 28 E. C. L. R. 324; 4 B. & C. 29 S. C. 10 E. C. L. R. 272; 3 C. & P. 453 S. C. 14 E. C. L. R. 386; 1 M. & W. 310; M. & M. 238; 1 Esp. R. 349 1 C. & P. 365

4. - 3. The whole sum due must be offered, in the lawful coin of the United States, or foreign coin made current by law; 2 N. & M. 519; and the offer must be unqualified by any circumstance whatever. 2 T. R. 305; 1 Campb. 131; 3 Campb. 70; 6 Taunt. 336; 3 Esp. C. 91; Stark. Ev. pt. 4, page 1392, n. g; 4 Campb. 156; 2 Campb. 21; 1 M. & W. 310. But a tender in bank notes, if not objected to on that account, will be good. 3 T. R. 554; 2 B. & P. 526; 1 Leigh's N. P. c. 1, S. 20; 9 Pick. 539; see 2 Caines, 116; 13 Mass. 235; 4 N. H. Rep. 296; 10 Wheat 333. But in such case, the amount tendered must be what is due exactly, for a tender of a five dollar note, demanding change, would not be a good tender of four dollars. 3 Campb. R. 70; 6 Taunt. R. 336; 2 Esp. R. 710; 2 D. & R. 305; S. C. 16 E. C. L. R. 87. And a tender was held good when made by a check contained in a letter, requesting a receipt in return which the plaintiff sent back demanding a larger sum, without objecting to the nature of the tender. 8 D. P. C. 442. When stock is to be tendered, everything must be done by the debtor to enable him to transfer it, but it is not absolutely requisite that it should be transferred. Str. 504, 533, 579 .

5. - 4. If a term had been stipulated in favor of a creditor, it must be expired; the offer should be made at the time agreed upon for the performance of the contract if made afterwards, it only goes in mitigation of damages, provided it be made before suit brought. 7 Taunt. 487; 8 East, R. 168; 5 Taunt. 240; 1 Saund. 33 a, note 2. The tender ought to be made before day-light is entirely gone. 7 Greenl. 31.

6. - 5. The condition on which the debt was contracted must be fulfilled.

7. - 6. The tender must be made at the place agreed upon for the payment, or, if there be no place appointed for that purpose, then to the creditor or his authorized agent. 8 John. 474; Lit. Sel. Cas. 132; Bac. Ab. h. t. c.

8. When a tender has been properly made, it is a complete defence to the action but the benefit of a tender is lost, if the creditor afterwards demand the thing due from the debtor, and the latter refuse to pay it. Kirby, 293.

9. - §2. Of the tender of specific articles. It is a rule that specific articles maybe tendered at some particular place, and not, like money, to the person of the creditor wherever found. When no place is expressly mentioned in the contract, the place of delivery is to be ascertained by the intent of the parties, to be collected from the nature of the case and its circumstances. If, for example, the contract is for delivery of goods from the seller to the buyer on demand, the former being the manufacturer of the goods or a dealer in them, no place being particularly named, the manufactory or store of the seller will be considered as the place intended, and a tender there will be sufficient. When the specific articles are at another place at the time of sale, that will be the place of delivery. 2 Greenl. Ev. §609 4 Wend. 377; 2 Applet. 325.

10. When the goods are cumbrous, and the place of delivery is not designated, nor to be inferred from the circumstances, it is presumed that it was intended that they should be delivered at any place which the creditor might reasonably appoint; if the creditor refuses, or names an unreasonable place, the debtor may select a proper place, and having given notice to the creditor, deliver the goods there. 2 Kent, Comm. 507; 1 Greenl. 120; Chip. on Contr. 51 13 Wend. 95; 2 Greenl. Ev. §610. Vide, generally, 20 Vin., Ab. 177; Bac. Ab. h. t.; 1 Sell. 314; Com. Dig. Action upon the case upon Assumpsit, H 8-Condition, L 4 Pleader, 2 G 2-2 W, 28,49-3 K 23-3 M 36; Chipm, on Contr. 31, 74; Ayl. Pand. B. 4, t. 29; 7 Greenl. 31 Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.

the part where it says "No bills of credit shall be issued..."

Bill of Credit = Cash In Your Pocket

make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts

You already listed it yourself. Why did you make this?

The Constitution is not a list of what the federal government cannot do, it's a list of what the federal government is authorized to do (what it can do). Amendments 9 & 10 make this point crystal clear. In order for the federal government to legally print fiat currency the gov must have Constitutional authorization, yet it does not and prints the money anyway.

Passing a law in congress, regarding legal tender laws, does not supersede the Constitution. There is a process for amending the Constitution, that is the proper legal way of enabling the federal government to print fiat money (or to do other things that it is forbidden from doing). No amendment exists which authorizes the printing of fiat currency, right? The authority to do so is not in the Constitution nor the amendments, therefore it is forbidden to the federal government by default. Being forbidden to the federal government, in most cases, would mean that it is a right of the States or of the people (as per amendments 9 & 10) but with specific regards to money the States are forbidden, as per the Constitution (Article 1 Section 10.1), from using anything but gold and silver.

How our federal government was able to put the spin on this is beyond me. My guess is two-fold: One is that it was done at a time when the people were not well informed about their government & what it was doing AND the simple fact that our political representatives in D.C. treat the Constitution like a doormat.

The United States dollar (sign: $; code: USD) is the unit of currency of the United States and is defined by the Coinage Act of 1792 to be between 371 and 416 grains (27.0 g) of silver (depending on purity).

Well, the federal government is not authorized to make anything legal tender. The States are not prohibited from making legal tender, although if they do then it must be gold and silver.

Personally, I have more trouble with the "general welfare clause".

From Websters:
Tender; 1. an unconditional offer of money ....etc. etc.
2. Something that may be offered in payment.
3: MONEY!

Therefore the founders made it a Constitutional LAW that only Gold/Silver be used as money.

Of course over time paper money or electronic money backed or redeemable in Gold/Silver replaced the use of coins, because constant use of coins would cause wear. Many old coins had the dates and mint marks completely worn off due to constant wear, but when the Fed took over in 1913, they printed more paper money than the accounted for Gold,,,thereby destroying the "Value" of the dollar.

Most people would call this Fraud!