where in the constitution does it say Only Gold and Silver shall be Legal tender
Posted March 14th, 2008 by Djdral
output
i looked through the constitution, and the only thing i could find was
"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."
this doesn't prohibit the printing of unbacked paper money does it?
Ron Paul keeps referencing that the federal reserve is unconstitutional for this reason.. can anybody tell me where it says that the federal government cannot print unbacked paper money in the constitution?
thanks..
Bookmark/Search this post with:
By Roger Sherman
A long read on the reasons why {1752}
http://www.constitution.o...
A Caveat Against Injustice
or, An Inquiry into the Evils of a Fluctuating Medium of Exchange,
WHEREIN is considered, whether the Bills of Credit on the Neighboring Governments, are a legal Tender in Payment of Money, In the COLONY of CONNECTICUT for Debts due by Book, and otherwise, where the Contract Mentions only Old-Tenor Money.
by Roger Sherman
author of Article 1 Section 10 of the United States Constitution, “No State shall make any Thing but
Gold and Silver Coin a tender in Payment of Debts”
Original publication, 1752
what is a bill of credit, it
what is a bill of credit, it is paper money. Printing paper money is emitting bills of credit.
i think it is just a matter
i think it is just a matter of understanding the wording for the time.
It clearly states what you were looking for in what you posted.
"No State shall..... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;"
The Key...
I think the key to understanding this is even if the Congress made something other than gold or silver coin as money then Constitutionally the States would still be unable to use it because the States can't "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts"
Makes it a moot point. It's bi-directionally binding.
=)
i think a big part of the problem
is the "Fed" technically is not a part of our government according to some sources on here. it is a private corporation.
Make anything but Gold and Silver......
Make anything but states just that "anything but". I don't see any ambiguity in this sentence.
These folks know the document better than I
I am a historian so here goes.
As ancient societies grew there needed to be something to use in trade.
Salt used to be fabulously valuable and was a relatively successful "currency." Once salt became more plentiful it "devalued" and man moved on.
In prison cigarettes are a successful medium of exchange. I suppose this is based on their "value" in the eyes of economic participants.
Gold and silver relative to their rarity and natural maleability (sp?) became successful as participants "agreed" to use these metals in trade.
What then happened was interesting and is the source of the issue today.
Storing gold and silver, walking around with gold and silver and cutting the metals up into "pieces"that would meet requirements of trade was regarded as a "problem."
This so called "problem" was resolved by financiers who formed businesses based on the storage of "your" gold and the issuance of paper notes that represented what gold you had in storage.
I would take my gold bricks to to "Joes bank" and Joe would give me certificates that the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker, that I bought stuff from, could "redeem for my gold."
This could have been all just fine if "Joe the banker" wasn't a two bit scumbag. If Joe had been cool and remained honest and just charged his little transaction fee everything would have been fine and the power struggle over money we are now discussing would never have happened.
I have a silver note from the US treasury. It means I can redeem it for silver. Fat chance, but that was the concept.
Everything we are talking about here is the struggle for power over humanity. The government does not need to be in the currency business and the world would be a better place if they were not.
I could go out and buy $1,000,000 of gold...1000 ounces. Put it in a vault and issue 1,000,000 "gold dollar certificates against it...(of course I would be put in jail for this) Now would you like my money? Or would you prefer fed notes that are in you pocket now.
My money does not deflate or inflate. My gold dollars would buy gas for your car...do you want to know how much Shell regular you could buy with my gold dollars? About 75 cents a gallon. This is based on gold valuation principles over the last 100 years. Yes, argue this issue all you please I am discussing the principal.
The argument in this thread is technically meaningless and this is why. The men who desire to control you got into the business of controlling you a long time ago. They saw this "medium of exchange" thing as a great way to have power over you and they do!
Dr. Paul's concept of "competitive currencies" is perfect and hilarious all at once. My post here defines the concept of a comp currency. Would the powers that be allow this? Sure, if they were all dead and in the GD ground.
This is how they control us and giving up control is not going to happen until we balance their power and give currency control back to the free markets. The free markets would instantly begin to store gold and silver and issue notes against theses stores. The scumbags would go out of business and the honest men would be fine. This is what the free market system is about.
By the way, remember "Joe's bank" earlier in my post? This is where it all went to hell. Joe began to "lend" at an interest rate against the gold stores of his depositors. He would split these earnings with his depositors. Sounds AOK right?
The hell part is here. Joe the scumbag was not regulated by free market forces because all the Joes were in cahoots and they had all the money so they controlled the king anyway.
If you checked Joe's real books you would discover that fractional reserves banking got invented a long time ago and the bankers just never bothered to tell anyone. I have my $1000 in gold in Joe's bank and Joe lent $100,000 in loans against it. he got the 5% a year ($5000) and a racket was born! Go get'em Joe! You are knocking them out! you can BUY EVERYONE NOW! Kings, governments, countries, industries, armies, hookers and all the other stuff.
It is claimed the CIA controls 90% of the heroin traffic in the world. Well, in the world of "medium of exchange" the CIA has it right. Afghan Heroin brought to you by the CIA is $90 a gram pure (after we invaded Afghanistan opium production went up 400%.) This breaks out to $90,000 a kilogram. The CIA mark up is about $85,000 on $5,000 a kilo from the grower....starting to make "Joe the banker" look like a moron huh? The CIA gets about 20 times their investment....Joe nothing like that at all......oops! I forgot the CIA works for Joe the banker! Phew! I was worried there for a minute.
Research and learn the truth. The doc says let the free market take care of currency. The government just requires the monopoly because they pretend to have more guns and lawyers( Where is Warren Zevon when you need him?)
Yes, the constitution discusses all of this, but, if Joe was honest, the government would be far, far weaker and that, my friends, is a good thing.
When are we going to unbind the Constitution.
It seems to me that over the years the Constitution has become irrelavent. The reason for this can be found in several of the replies to this post. Supreme Courts over the course of over 200 years have made decision which restrict the interpretation of the Constitution. What I would like to see done is to wipe the slate clean of all previous Supreme Court decisions regarding the Constitution. Isn't this how the United States began? Why should the Supreme Court be restricted from making judgements about the Constitution based on past decisions? This would liberate States from higher court decisions and return power to State legislation.
Not intending to put too fine a point on the discussion, but
the U.S. Supreme Court is not technically "bound" by any previous decision. While it is true that most lawyers worship at the alter of the principle called: stare decisis, there is no actual "law" that legally binds them to that principle. Stare Decisis is not actually a "law" but rather a policy of the court to stand by precedent; without regard as to whether it is constitutional or not. The two cases I cite below show an example of that fact.
Suggest you read the Federalist Papers and the
discussions that took place regarding the intent of the interlocking phrases in Art. 1, Sec. 8 and Art 1, Sec. 10. Your question asks where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government cannot do a particular thing. The Constitution was not written that way. It grants specific powers to the Federal government. Read the 9th and 10th amendments. If the Constitution does NOT specifically grant a power to the federal government, then the federal government does not have the right to assume that power, simply because it is not specifically denied to it. You might also refer to the early Supreme Court decisions on the matter, which recognized that the constitution was intended to forever do away with the blight of paper money (backed or not). See: Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. 603. Overruled in subsequent cases such as: Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, in which the Court declared that, although the Constitution did not specifically grant Congress the power to print paper money, that this was an "implied" power. (The founding fathers simply "forgot" to mention it.) In other words, the Court "invented" the power for Congress even though they acknowledged that nowhere in the Constitution was Congress granted the power to print paper money. In the Libertarian community, this decision, and the concept that it sets forth, is usually regarded as just one more example of the weakness in the wording of the U.S. Constitution; a place where it "leaks tyranny". In the case of the Juilliard decision, it was a majority of the Supreme Court justices who poked a hole in the original intent of the Constitution (they didn't fool Justice Fields) and, lo and behold, we can now look out across the land and see the economic tyranny that was let loose.
The answer is right there...
The answer is right there... In your quote!
A bill of credit is exactly that... Paper money!!!!!
Back in 1776, everybody would have known that. We don't call money "Bills of credit" anymore... But that is exactly what it is.
Bill of Credit = Paper money
"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."
FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well...
It says no STATE shall emit anything but gold and solver as legal tender
The founding fathers purposely were silent on the Federal Govt issue of Treasury Notes, because they knew they couldn't predict future events.
If you ask me, it isn't an issue of gold/paper as much as it is an issue of who has the issuing power. It's entirely possible to run a paper system with a stable price level and no debt burden.
Careful what you wish for
"If you ask me, it isn't an issue of gold/paper as much as it is an issue of who has the issuing power. It's entirely possible to run a paper system with a stable price level and no debt burden."
That was the exact theory pushed by monetarists such as Milton Friedman, then adopted, then in turn, brought us to where we are today.
USSA Today
wrong
The Fed only adopted those aspects of Friedman's plan that suited them. Milton Friedman proposed a system of 100% reserve banking. Had we fully adopted that system, we would be fine today.
Milton Friedman was a central-bank enabler.
Milton Friedman was a central-bank enabler.
USSA Today
just one way to "coin" Money
You're bypassing Article I, Section 8:
So, how does the Congress "coin" Money in the form of "Federal Reserve Notes"? How does the Federal Reserve System fit within this framework? Only the Congress has the power to "coin Money" and "regulate the Value thereof."
Isn't there just one way to "coin" Money? --that is by making coins?
So, to turn to Article I, Section 10:
Since fiat currency (i.e. "Bills of Credit") is not defined as Money to the Constitution, this line implies that the Congress shall not emit Bills of Credit, as well as the States, since the Power to "coin Money" and "regulate the Value thereof" was explicitly addressed in Article I, Section 8. For a similar reason "gold and silver Coin" are the only lawful "Tender in Payment of Debts" --this is a direct inference that Congress shall make only gold and silver Coin, since Congress has the power to coin Money and indeed Money is "Tender in Payment of Debts."
"We don't have to start a brand new revolution...All we have to do is restore the original Constitution." -Ron Paul
Here's the funny part.
Ironically, there is no such restriction on the PEOPLE to coin their own money (ala LIberty Dollars!).
A strict-constructionist would say (and I agree, and we see it all the time anyway, called coupons, gift cards, and gift certificates!) that private persons and entities can print money all they want in whatever form they want. The Constitution just limits government, not people.
What about?
I am reading a book about the international bankers and their corruptness....would it be possible to go back to "greenbacks"
our government (not bankers) would print it and charge no interest....
and viola we are out of debt.....is this possible
Yes we could do this, but
Yes we could do this, but you have to ask yourself why should the government have the power to create money even if there is no interest attached. We would still be on a paper currency and our govt would continue to expand. We need sound money where the govt cannot inflate and steal wealth, this is also the only way we can have limited government. go to mises.org and search what has government done to our money by Murray Rothbard.
Question About Gold Standard
If we link the $ to Gold, what would happen when the price of gold drops from current levels of approx. $900 an ounce to say $500 per ounce?
It is interesting to note that the Gov't SET the price of gold and fixed it in the $19 - $21 for 130 years from 1800 to 1930. When the price of gold is fixed it is a great hedge against inflation.
How is today different? In 1980 Gold was $641 /oz in 2000 it was $272 /oz and today it is over $900 /oz. Today gold is not so much a hedge against inflation as much as a commodity that is negatively correlated with the stock market and therefore goes up when stocks decline.
You are mistaken
By setting the price of gold between $19-$21 dollars, what the government does is really ONLY setting the value of a dollar at about 1/20th an ounce of gold. Gold is an internationally traded commodity, and cannot have its value assigned legislatively. Only paper bills with no inherent worth are vulnerable to value-setting, and then only by an institution in control of enough assets to set that value against. Any gold standard, in fact, is defined by such a value setting. The international value of gold may drop from the equivalent of $900 an ounce to $500 an ounce, but if the value was set at the $900 an ounce level, $1 will still be worth 1/900 an ounce of Gold. That dollar will just buy less of anything that is not gold, becuase gold has lost relative value.
In short, standards of value set to precious metals are not proof against inflation or deflation, they just limit them, because a metal will never have no value or infinite value.
It's not the value of gold
It's not the value of gold that is fluctuating but is rather the purchasing power of the dollar which causes these fluctuations. As the dollar loses purchasing power it then requires more of them to purchase gold and/or other commodities.
Gold price was stable for a very long time... until the government took us off the gold standard, then it was the purchasing power of the dollar which has caused all the changes in the gold price since..
This is what IS happening
Although it no longer is backed by gold since 1971, the BELIEF is that it is worth something because those in charge had reserves.
When you divide Circulation of $ against gold, its currently $13,000 per ounce. When you find out that they infact have NO gold, what you have is worthless paper. Just like a cheque that you can never redeem. It's worthless.
So if your looking for actual worth of the US dollar, it's zero, but those accepting it don't yet realise this, but you will notice that more now do realise. The markets.. they're telling you in very clear terms whats going on.
$800 1980 =
$2500 2008
Gold has plenty to go to hit the SAME high.
You need to adjust for INFLATION.
Only thing is, this time it aint stopping.
Lookup Zimbabwe hyperinflation.
USA is 100 Trillion in debt, and makes Net Minus 700 Billion per year.
And it's now accelerating. USA has been broke for years and now Americans are going to pay and pay hard.
Amendment X
"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."
Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution prohibits STATES from emitting Bills of Credit (debt instruments or fiat currency), but does not EXPLICITLY bar the Fe'ral Govt. However, since it also does not explicitly DELEGATE such power to the Federales, then only the people are permitted in the USA to issue bills of credit.
The beauty of the tenth amendment is this, unless the Constitution says the Fed can, it CANNOT, and unless it says the States or the people cannot, they CAN.
You and I, acting on our own behalf, are free to issue IOUs backed by nothing but our own good names, but neither the Feds nor the States are permitted either to issue such instruments, nor to accept them as payment.
Viva Agora!
Professor Bernardo de la Paz
www.citizenduquesne.org
Bingo, my friend.
"The beauty of the tenth amendment is this, unless the Constitution says the Fed can, it CANNOT, and unless it says the States or the people cannot, they CAN."
Big, shiny, golden Bingo. :) I'm very glad to see someone beat me to this exact point.
_________________________
Moobi
www.CentralIllinois4RonPa...
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson
Confederate Cross
The thing I like most about the Confederate Battle Flag is that the big cross looks like an X which is also the Roman Numeral Ten and thereby indicative of the Tenth Amendment and divided sovereignty.
Viva Agora!
Professor Bernardo de la Paz
www.citizenduquesne.org
Article 1 section 10 is correct
I just want to ad that the law applies today it has never been changed or amended.
Article I section 10
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
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.
"emit Bills of Credit"
How's that for a start? Federal Reserve Notes are bills of credit as they are borrowed into existence with interest attached. You cannot pay a debt with credit and you cannot borrow your way out of debt.
Or howzabout: "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts". So "any Thing" would encompass corporeal, incorporeal, tangible or intangible terms. (See: Federalist Paper No. 44)
Paper is not money. It is merely the representative of money if something of value (gold or silver coin) is backing it. When Roosevelt expropriated everyone's gold in 1933 and replaced it with unconstitutional Federal Reserve Notes the exchange was at 1 to 1. Now the exchange rate is 20 to 1. It was designed to collapse so the banksters could collect the collateral: that being your country. They don't want the paper paid back. They know it's just worthless pieces of paper.
BTW the government doesn't print "unbacked paper money" because it's unconstitutional for the above reasons. However the unregulated privately owned Federal Reserve Bank does print the paper. That's why the banksters fear Dr. Paul. He is publicly exposing their crimes.
The Fed is un-Constitutional
The Fed is un-Constitutional because only the Congress has the power to "coin" money and regulate its value. They can't turn that responsibly over to a private corporation (the Fed).
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power ... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
It's seems convoluted but you have to try and understand that the powers granted in the "States" section are subsumed by the powers of the "Congress" section part.
This may help:
http://www.financialsense...
1827 Supreme Court ruling:
"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... "
Article I section 10 clause
Article I section 10 clause 1
Dr. Steve Parent
Here it is:
Article 1 section 10
Also, The United States Code, Title 12, Section 152, states: “Lawful money shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States.”
For more info: http://www.halexandria.or...