Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything 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.
I don't see why people who claim to love the constitution can be okay with fiat currency and what's going on today. The nation was meant to have gold and silver as its national currency. So... I don't know how the whole constitutional argument got overlooked.
bloomj31: Wanderer: Since there was no mention of a central bank, it was implied that there would never be one. A fair argument, but obviously not strong enough to have stopped the creation of a central bank. It's a shame that they didn't put in the language against central banks. It would've saved us so much time and hardship.
Wanderer: Since there was no mention of a central bank, it was implied that there would never be one.
Since there was no mention of a central bank, it was implied that there would never be one.
A fair argument, but obviously not strong enough to have stopped the creation of a central bank. It's a shame that they didn't put in the language against central banks. It would've saved us so much time and hardship.
I know, I'm not disagreeing. Just saying.
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
sthomper: ...make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts... is tender in payment of debts significantly different than money?
...make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts...
is tender in payment of debts significantly different than money?
I don't think so. My guess is that's just more archaic/formal version of saying that.
dunno?
The Congress shall have power..."To coin money...."
and the states were to only make gold and silver coin (coins used as money too i guess) as legal tender....
so congress can coin money, states were to only make gold and silver coin as 'legal tender' but since the constitution says nothing about a central bank any congressional act conjuring one into existence was ok??
were there correspondences amongst the FFs specifically speaking out against a central bank like entity at the time of the consitutions writing?
sthomper: so congress can coin money, states were to only make gold and silver coin as 'legal tender' but since the constitution says nothing about a central bank any congressional act conjuring one into existence was ok??
Not ok. If it's not written explicitly in Article One Section 8 (hopefully I don't have the numbers backwards but it's the explicit outline of what powers Congress has), then the state's have the power according to Amendment Nine or Ten (the tenent stating if not given powers to federal government here-in then the power is of the state's, etc...).
Jefferson saw that everything was going downhill and nobody was upholding the principles that they set-forth and even wrote in the Constitution. He quit as Secretary of State under George Washington has the Hamiltonian faction of huge federal power was ruling the roast and Jefferson didn't want any part of it anymore.
This.
I think you can relate this to the argument that people make when they use the "General Welfare" argument to pass things like universal health care, because, in their mind, health care falls into general welfare. What many people don't understand is that "General Welfare" was only relating to things that were outlined in The Constitution. Since health care isn't discussed in The Constitution, it doesn't fall into the General Welfare category.
indeed
jmorris84: Wanderer: Since there was no mention of a central bank, it was implied that there would never be one. This. I think you can relate this to the argument that people make when they use the "General Welfare" argument to pass things like universal health care, because, in their mind, health care falls into general welfare. What many people don't understand is that "General Welfare" was only relating to things that were outlined in The Constitution. Since health care isn't discussed in The Constitution, it doesn't fall into the General Welfare category.
Judge Andrew Napolitano has a quote relating to this: "How general is your welfare?"
wilderness:Not ok. If it's not written explicitly in Article One Section 8 (hopefully I don't have the numbers backwards but it's the explicit outline of what powers Congress has), then the state's have the power according to Amendment Nine or Ten (the tenent stating if not given powers to federal government here-in then the power is of the state's, etc...).
Congress can regulate commerce. A central bank is needed to do that, and Congress can "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States".
Just to be clear, I'm not disputing a literalist/enumerated powers argument for the Constitution, I'm just saying that the people who basically say "if the constitution doesn't say I CANT do it, I obviously can" have been winning for a long time.
Also, I think the Commerce Clause is one of the most abused parts of the Constitution, I don't think the Founders ever intended it to be used to argue that the government should be able to control healthcare.
scineram: wilderness:Not ok. If it's not written explicitly in Article One Section 8 (hopefully I don't have the numbers backwards but it's the explicit outline of what powers Congress has), then the state's have the power according to Amendment Nine or Ten (the tenent stating if not given powers to federal government here-in then the power is of the state's, etc...). Congress can regulate commerce.
Congress can regulate commerce.
That only means the federal government can set the tax rate. It was an addition from the Articles of Confederation in which differing states were taxing variously to each other. The first central banks had no way of gaining establishment under such a clause therefore (has been known for most of the history of the U.S. - maybe the Supreme Court still understands this). The first central banks made their way in through the door of the 'necessary and proper' clause. That clause has been the stamp of approval for almost everything not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but again it is only to be necessary and proper if written word for word in the Constitution. From day one the Constitution was trashed so it doesn't really matter.
scineram: A central bank is needed to do that, and Congress can "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States".
A central bank is needed to do that, and Congress can "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States".
That's the necessary and proper clause and it only pertains, at least in the infancy of the government and the explicit meaning originally, that anything written in the Constitution under Article One Section 8 in which it outliness all the duties that Congress can carry forth. If it doesn't say it word for word, then Congress was to have no power to enact it. If it's not in the Judical or Executive Branches, then all else fell to the states. Originally, even up to the Civil War each individual state were mainly considered similar to their own countries/republics with an overarching Federal government to bind them all.
wouldnt this mean to make sure they all made gold and silver coin their legal tender?
if you have heard people say they love the constitution...and love the legal tender system that exists now...which i guess is different from what is decreed in the us constitution...then maybe you shoiuld ask those people.
if you mean gold and silver as "legal" tender or consitutional mandated COIN as fiat money...i guess those constitutin lovers just also happen to like gold and silver coin as money.
sthomper: Congress can regulate commerce. wouldnt this mean to make sure they all made gold and silver coin their legal tender?
Congress can regulate commerce. wouldnt this mean to make sure they all made gold and silver coin their legal tender?
I don't know if those two go together directly, but they both are written as obligations of the federal government.
sthomper: if you mean gold and silver as "legal" tender or consitutional mandated COIN as fiat money...i guess those constitutin lovers just also happen to like gold and silver coin as money.
I wasn't sure what you said here. It states gold and silver, correct? And that's not fiat money. I also know it states they were to regulate a standard measure of gold and silver for the coin which is price fixing anyways and that would have eventually stood in the way of free market dynamics due it's a centrally planned standard measure of the weights and numerial value of the coins. They could never calculate the value of the gold and silver, stamp it, and then distribute it to keep in touch with the real market dynamics.
i have seen definitions of the word fiat that meant 'by legal decree'...i wasnt sure if the original poster was referring to the fiat definition meaning "by legal or authoritative decree" or not.
The most fatal flaw of the Constitution was its giving monetary oversight to politicians. The Constitution represents a victory of the big government Federalists over their Anti-Federalist opponents. I do believe if we are going to have a constitution then it should be followed or abolished through its own due process. Most folks who love the Constitution haven't read it. I have read parts. It is very dry reading. I carry one in my pocket frequently but would rather be riding than reading the Constitution. Let the market decide what money is.
Mama always told me to wear clean underwear in case I got into a gunfight with the government.