Thus, I wrote the following in support of House Bill 853, which establishes a commission to study the effects of fiat money on the wealth of New Hampshire citizens. The commission, as written, would only study the effects on wealth; I think we need to also look into the constitutional questions surrounding fiat money:
Fiat Money: “Legal tender, especially paper currency, authorized by a government but not based on or convertible into gold or silver.” – American Heritage Dictionary
“No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts” – Constitution of the
Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution provides that the states may only pay off debts with gold and silver coin. The definition of debt from West’s Encyclopedia of American Law: “A sum of money that is owed or due to be paid because of an express agreement; a specified sum of money that one person is obligated to pay and that another has the legal right to collect or receive.” All of the State of
Furthermore, the article says that States may not use “any Thing but gold and silver” for payment of these debts. “Any Thing” can in no way be construed to mean Federal Reserve Notes or any other fiat money.
Therefore, all money, except for gold and silver, is prohibited from use as payment of debts. The State of
The Coinage Act of 1792 was the first act related to money after the passage of the Constitution. It can be reasonably asserted that all the money referenced in the Coinage Act is in line with the Constitution, given that both documents were greatly influenced by many of the same authors.
All money to be minted was made of gold and silver, except cents and half-cents, which were copper. The coinage and money referenced in the Constitution is the same money that is prescribed for in the Coinage Act.
One denomination of money mentioned in the Coinage Act was a “dollar”. Today’s Americans would almost certainly associate the word dollar with the Federal Reserve Note that bears the likeness of George Washington. However, this association is wrong.
The Federal Reserve “dollar” is not the dollar that is provided for in the Constitution. The Constitution references the word “dollar” twice. The Coinage Act defines a dollar as follows:“Dollar - each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver.”
In fact, the use of the Spanish milled dollar in
The dollar, in its constitutional context, is based on the silver Spanish milled dollar, and has nothing to do with today’s Federal Reserve “dollar”.
6 comments:
Those powers were expressly given to Congress...
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
...
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
Congress does have the power to coin money. Notice it says COIN money. And also it says it is the power of CONGRESS. It does not give Congress the power to print paper money or delegate that power to a private banking cartel (Federal Reserve).
We can also assume this gives Congress an effective monopoly on the issuance of coin money. Therefore, we can further assume that the several states will use this money as a payment for debts. But states shall only use GOLD and SILVER to pay for debts, and NOT paper money.
In Libertate,
Tyler
A "Federal Reserve Note" is not a U.S.A. dollar.
There have been U.S.A. laws after 1792 redefining the U.S.A. dollar as no longer consisting of fixed mass of silver but rather consisting of a fixed mass of gold, the first being in 1900 with the Gold Standard Act.
The last time, that I know of, that the official U.S.A. price for gold was fixed was in 1973 at 42.2222 dollars per ounce. Public Law 93-110 defined the U.S.A. dollar as consisting of 1/42.2222 fine troy ounces of gold.
I am unaware of any U.S.A. law, since P.L. 93-110 in 1973, redefining the U.S.A. dollar as no longer consisting of a fixed mass of gold.
The action, of no longer redeeming "Federal Reserve Notes" for gold for various people, is not the same thing as the action of defining or redefining what the dollar actually is.
My point exactly: a Federal Reserve Note is not a "dollar". The point of referencing the definition of a dollar, historically speaking, is to show that it is not meant to be a valueless form of money.
The Constitution provides that we have value-backed currency, but unfortunately Congress has delegated almost all money making powers to an unconstitutional banking cartel. Those powers it has retained it has chosen to disregard. They have one of the most destructive and powerful tools the world has ever seen on their side: inflation.
I believe you made a mistake in the following excerpt:
"Furthermore, the article says that States may not use “any Thing but gold and silver” for payment of these debts. “Any Thing” can in no way be construed to mean Federal Reserve Notes or any other fiat money."
The last sentence should say this:
"Any Thing" includes everything that is not explicitly mentioned for exception.
"Any Thing" can in every way be construed to mean Federal Reserve notes or Fiat money... Which is why Any thing is such a crucial word. It excludes all but gold and silver.
By the way keep up the great work. Thank you for instilling hope back into America by trying to reestablish what were once highly esteemed values.
Faulty reasoning. The clause is denying *STATES* the right, not the federal government.
"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."
Using that clause, by the exactly same reasoning you're using I could argue that the Federal Government also does not have the constitutional authority to coin money. Which is false, and if fact is explicitly given in Section 8.
Post a Comment