Comment: The provision was not "struck".

(See in situ)


The provision was not "struck".

In 33/34, this statute wasn't even on the books because of the constitutional guarantee of lawful money. That constitutional guarantee was suspended by EO 6102:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

Subsequent to that, it was encoded into the USC to accomodate for note transfers from banks. Although, it clearly is not limited to banks.

Congress suspended the USC statute in 1964 (eff 10/1/64) by law as evidenced by the corresponding CFR *and* USC notes attached to the subchapter.

It was NOT "struck". The law and statute is very clearly still on the books. That's what is beautiful about it -> THE LAW IS ALREADY PASSED AND IN PLACE on the books. However, it was suspended. Again, Congress has the power to lift that suspension.

I think the logical error you are making is the very common "is" vs. "supposed to be" logical error.

Yes, gold and silver is "supposed to be" lawful money. Yes, the constitution guarantees that. So what. It currently IS NOT. Until you can recognize where you are, it is impossible to identify a roadmap to get to where you want to go. We are NOT where we are "supposed to be" today. We are where we are.

You can either delude yourself with logical fallacies that what IS and what is SUPPOSED TO BE are the same, and then go off in wild directions throwing shyte at the wall.

OR you can recognize where we really are, deal with facts and plot a laser-focused course to get to where we are supposed to be without expending resources on nonsense efforts.