Our Constitution Has Been SUSPENDED...oh, has it now?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Johnny_Utah_
Unconstitutional would be letting a President get away with perjury.


QFT

But is it not also unconstitutional to allow an entire administration to "get away" with blatant deception in order to build a consensus for an ongoing act of aggression against a country that has now been proven to have posed no threat to the safety of the U.S.?


President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.

It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.

In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.
The Center for Public Integrity | Iraq : The War Card | Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War

Attempting to distinguish between the Bush and Clinton regimes, IMHO, is like comparing two fetid turds spawned of the same puckered sphincter, and only serves to further divide those who would seek to expose, and bring to an end, the influence wielded by these dirty-dealing, closed-door politico transgressors against the American people and the world at large.

Whether or not the Constitution is still in effect, the Bush regime has behaved like that "damn piece of paper" has no bearing whatsoever on what they can get away with.

And to date, they've pretty much been allowed to get away with it.

But that doesn't make it Constitutional.




posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_
 




I love how defenders of President Clinton STILL say it was about oral sex.


I'm no big fan of Clinton, but they had no business even asking him about his sex life. That's the point. There are much more important questions that should be being asked of Bush, and there isn't a peep. Bush has set the stage for the Democrats to come in next term, and sell out America to the NAU.



Things are “ruled” constitutional. How are they ruled…by the a judge's perception of what the Constitution says. It's always been that way. I will agree with you, I don’t think they are Constitutional, but nevertheless a judge ruled them to be by way of his/her interpretation. If the Constitution was suspended…it would have never made it to the judge to begin with. The court would have no say.


How can you "interpret" something to be the exact opposit meaning of what it actually sais? You can't. All you can say is that yes, its unconstitutional, but we're going to do it anyway because it is "in the public interest" or "more important" than the Constitution.

The courts do not get their power from from the Constitution. The courts are operated under military authority by officers of the private entity known as the BAR Association. The gold-fringe on the American flag represents the military authority over the courtroom. MARTIAL LAW. Again, the Supreme Court does not get their power or authority from the Constitution.



Army Regulation 840-10, 2.3(b) (1979) states:

b. National flags listed below are for indoor displays and for use in ceremonies and parades. For these purposes the United States flag will be rayon banner cloth, trimmed on three sides with golden yellow fringe, 2 1/2 inches wide.

Army Regulation 840-10, 2.3(c) states:

c. Authorization for indoor display. The flag of the United States is authorized for indoor display for:

(1) each office, headquarters, and organization authorized a positional color, distinguishing flag, or organizational color;
(2) each organization of battalion size or larger, temporary or permanent, not otherwise authorized a flag of the United States;
(3) each military installation not otherwise authorized an indoor flag of the United States, for the purpose of administering oaths of office;

(4) each military courtroom;

(5) each US Army element of joint commands, military groups, and missions. One flag is authorized for any one headquarters operating in a dual capacity;
(6) each subordinate element of the US Army Recruiting Command;
(7) each ROTC unit, including those at satellited schools;
(8) each reception station.




Public Policy is policy, because and only because, it has been ruled to be Constitutional OR it is unchallenged to not be so in court.
You can think or feel differently, but that is how it is.


Public policy has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONSTITUTION. Please review the definitions which I provided above. This is not a matter of my opinion, this is a matter of fact from a Law Dictionary.



Anecdotal cases where there a interpretations WE (that is me too) don’t agree with…is not proof of the reverse.


Our personal opinions on their rulings are irrelevant. It doesn't matter wether or not we think bag searches are a good idea. They were never ruled to be "Constitutional." The Supreme Court simply refused to find that the bag searches were un-constitutional. That's not the same thing. They ruled what they deemed to be in the best interest of the public. Whenever you hear about the Supreme Court deciding on the "Constitutionality" of something, it is coming out of the propoganda machine. The only thing the Supreme Court decides, is public policy, which has NADA to do with the US Constitution.



You are the one who said, either on this thread or the other one, that the President is a dictator.


He isn't yet. The Patriot Act will take care of that though, when the chosen one decides to implement the full authority of the Act. The Patriot Act will be the new Constitution.



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 

You cannot site Military Regulations and apply them to the non-military courts. They are exceptionally different.
The Constitution was not created as a guideline or set path, giving us instructions on everything we can and cannot do. Obviously, there are many things which we have issues with now, that the writers did not foresee.
“To recognize the role of constitutional law in establishing a culture of freedom takes nothing away from the formative role played by economic life, popular entertainment and the arts, friendship and family, love and war, religious faith and faith in reason. Our opinions about freedom, as well as our capacities to enjoy its blessings and maintain its material and moral preconditions, are formed by many forces. The supreme law of the land, however, is of special interest. By establishing authoritative limits, by proclaiming, with the backing of the coercive power of the state, what is forbidden, what is permitted, and what is required, it creates comprehensive background conditions for, and sets a tone that reverberates throughout, ALL spheres of our lives.”
www.hoover.org...

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_
 




You cannot site Military Regulations and apply them to the non-military courts. They are exceptionally different.


I agree they should be exceptionally different, but they are not. Why would non-military courts be displaying military colors? Think about it for a minute. That gold fring isn't just there because it looks pretty. It denotes military authority. It is not an accident. Either the court is falsely displaying military authority, in which case every case ever heard could be tossed on the technicality, or they are in fact operating under military authority.



The Constitution was not created as a guideline or set path, giving us instructions on everything we can and cannot do. Obviously, there are many things which we have issues with now, that the writers did not foresee.


The Constitution certainly was created as a guideline, and more importantly a basic set of rules that could not be challenged. They were not instructions for everything, only the governing principles by which new issues are considered. Do you really think that the framers of the Constitution thought they knew everything about the future, certainly not. But they all agreed that no matter what the future had in store for America, the people were still entitled to benefit from "inalienable rights" that were never meant to be tampered with. In other words, the government and the people it represents could decide any issue however they choose, as long as it does not violate the rules, which are the very essence of what it means to be an American. Without the Constitution, there IS NO AMERICA.



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 

I said this...
"The Constitution was not created as a guideline or set path, giving us instructions on everything we can and cannot do. Obviously, there are many things which we have issues with now, that the writers did not foresee. "
You said this...
"The Constitution certainly was created as a guideline, and more importantly a basic set of rules that could not be challenged. They were not instructions for everything, only the governing principles by which new issues are considered. Do you really think that the framers of the Constitution thought they knew everything about the future, certainly not. But they all agreed that no matter what the future had in store for America, the people were still entitled to benefit from "inalienable rights" that were never meant to be tampered with. In other words, the government and the people it represents could decide any issue however they choose, as long as it does not violate the rules, which are the very essence of what it means to be an American. Without the Constitution, there IS NO AMERICA."
we are saying the same thing!
The Constitution has proclaimed our rights and set lines for what the government can and cannot do.
It is up to us, to fill in the blanks as long as they do not contradict the Constitution.



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_
 


But the Constitution is being contradicted everyday. Furthermore, if you go to court to fight for your Constitutional rights, your claim will be dismissed as frivelous. This is because the Constitution is no longer valid. Civil rights are not Constitutional rights.



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


But the Constitution is being contradicted everyday. Furthermore, if you go to court to fight for your Constitutional rights, your claim will be dismissed as frivolous.


Our courts are overworked. Dockets are full. A lot of times a citizen will file a suit pro se - that is, for himself - but which the judge recognizes as having already been decided. Under those circumstances, the judge will summarily dismiss the case as being res judicata. Already decided. It is not personal. But it is legal.

But see this copied from the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have power . . [to] provide for the common defense . . To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court . . To declare war . . and make rules concerning captures on land and water . . To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy . . To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces . . To 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, or in any department or officer thereof.

Article 2, Section 2
. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; End. www.law.cornell.edu...

[edit on 2/23/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


When was the last time you ever heard of a person going to court to fight for their Constitutional rights? I'm not talking about suits that could be genuinely frivelous. NO ONE can go to court to fight for their "inalienable rights" outlined by the Constitution. You are not a sovereign person with rights, your identity is a privatley owned corporate entity held by the recievers of the US bankruptcy in 1933.

I am not sure what you are trying to argue here.



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


When was the last time you ever heard of a person going to court to fight for their Constitutional rights? I'm not talking about suits that could be genuinely frivolous. NO ONE can go to court to fight for their "inalienable rights" outlined by the Constitution.


I retired from clerking in the Kentucky court system in 1990. I worked there for 17 years. I have worked part-time in lawyer’s offices typing brief and doing some legal research. To answer your question, “When was the last time . . “ it was a long time ago. But people do it every day. People accused of crimes often file a claim for Constitutional protection under the 4th amendment, which bans illegal search and seizures. Other’s accused of crimes file for relief under the 6th amendment for what they regard as excessive bail. But in each kind of case I have mentioned, the first cases were filed in the 1800s and so by now, the “law is settled.” It is very unlikely anyone can bring a NOVEL or NEW angle to bear on those basic rights. I have mentioned the fellow who used peyote in a tribal religious ceremony but failed to get help under the First Amendment.

Courts are bombarded with 1000s of petitions for relief from prisoners who write their own petitions. Sure, the judge is not going to read it, but his clerk will. If the clerk sees anything he cannot deal with, he will refer it to the judge. Those cases are called “pro se” because the person writes for himself. Most of them are summarily dismissed too, because they almost never bring forth a novel legal point or a new issue of fact.

Perhaps the most famous pro se case was Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). A landmark case in Supreme Court history. From his prison cell at Florida State Prison making use of the prison library and writing in pencil on prison stationery, Gideon appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court in a suit against the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, Louie L. Wainwright.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants unable to afford their own attorneys. Specifically, the Court determined whether the lack of competent representation amounted to a denial of due process, rendering the trial unfair. It can happen.



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


Okay, I stand corrected, to some degree.

But the fact remains that whatever Constitutional protections we are afforded, are not based on Constitutional authority, but current statutes instead. A US Citizen does have privileges protected under these statutes, but they can be modified or removed at any time because they are not inalienable sovereign rights. Just because public policy happens to coincide with what was outlined in the Constitution, does not mean that the authority resides there.

"Illegal search and seizure" was outlined in the Constitution, but the authority rests in the current statutes instead. It is now public policy that the police in NYC are allowed to search you in the subways without a warrant or even direct probable cause. This stands in direct contradiction to the Constitutionlly protected right. If you sue to enjoy your Constitutionally protected right, your case will be dismissed as "frivelous" or "without merit" simply because the courts have made a statute blocking you from enjoying your rights, as they have had the authority to do ever since the Constitution was suspeneded in 1933.

There was no Constitutional Amendment made to allow warrantless searches. It has simply become a matter of public policy upheld by the statutes of the courts. And the Citizen has no forum to challenge such a statute, because they no longer have the right to do so.

How can the courts strip away a Constitutionally protected right without an Amendment? Simple answer. There is no Constitutional right, ever since 1933. Only matters of statutory public policy.

[edit on 2/23/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


But the fact remains that whatever Constitutional protections we are afforded, are not based on Constitutional authority, but current statutes instead.


It was always meant to be that way. The founding document, in our case the US Constitution of 1787, is the foundation of the nation, but in its particular applications, Congress was authorized to write the specific laws.


"Illegal search and seizure" was outlined in the Constitution, but the authority rests in the current statutes instead. It is now public policy that the police in NYC are allowed to search you in the subways without a warrant or even direct probable cause. This stands in direct contradiction to the Constitutionally protected right. There was no Constitutional Amendment made to allow warrantless searches. It has simply become a matter of public policy upheld by the statutes or the courts.


Hey! I hate to get political but that is EXACTLY what you are doing. The so-called LIBERAL Supreme Court under Warren and Burger would not have allowed that practice (stop and frisk) to go on, but the so-called Conservative court under Rehnquist and Roberts APPROVED of that as being constitutional IN THEIR VIEW.

This is the crux of the arguments over juridical nominees. Democratic judges EXTEND civil liberties, Republican judges RESTRICT civil liberties. This is what the Republicans mean by LAW and ORDER.


(1) . . ever since the Constitution was suspended in 1933. There is no Constitutional right, ever since 1933. (2) Only matters of statutory public policy.


1) Why have you picked 1933 as the year of the suspension of the US Con?
2) Can you explain in a few words what is the difference between No. 1 and No. 2?



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 



1) Why have you picked 1933 as the year of the suspension of the US Con?


That's like asking why I chose 1929 for the Great Depression to start. But if you are looking for further evidence that 1933 was the year which the US Constitution was suspended, I will submit the following:



With the nation bankrupt and insolvent, the U.S. Constitution was suspended in 1933 with Congressional approval and by the Executive Order of President Frankiln D. Roosevelt when he asked for,"Broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe."

Constitutional authority has never been reinstated. The emergency has never been declared over. Speaking to Congress, US Rep. James Traficant declared the following:

“It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. HJR 192, 73rd Congress session of June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States governmental offices and departments and is further evidence that the United States Government exists today in name only.

The receivers of the United States bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States offices, officials and departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the constitutional Republican form of government now dissolved, the receivers of the bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of the Treasury to that of the Governor of the international Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section 13955 reads in part: "The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States."”


I will return shortly to address your second question...



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   


2) Can you explain in a few words what is the difference between No. 1 and No. 2?


Constitutional law is best defined as follows, by the 6th Edition of Black's Law Dictionary:


Public law. That branch or department of law which is concerned with the state in its political or sovereign capacity, including constitutional and administrative law, and with the definition, regulation, and enforcement of rights where the state is regarded as the subject of the right or object of the duty, . . . That portion of law which is concerned with political conditions; that is to say, with the powers, rights, duties, capacities, and incapacities which are peculiar to political superiors, supreme and subordinate.


The key issue here is sovereignty. Courts enforcing public law are bound by the Constitution, without interpretation. They must enforce what is written, even to the detriment of what might otherwise be considered to be in the best interests of the public. For example, warrantless searches would be illegal, even if it may be in the interests of public safety.

Statutory public policy is not bound by any obligation to the US Constitution, but instead by what is viewed to be in the interest of the public, by sworn officers whose first allegiance is to the private entity known as the BAR Association.

Again I cite Black's Law Dictionary:



Public policy. Community common sense and common conscience, extended and applied throughout the state to matters of public morals, health, safety, welfare, and the like; it is that general and well-settled public opinion relating to man's plain, palpable duty to his fellow men, having due regard to all circumstances of each particular relation and situation.


In other words, the rules of society can be changed at any time, for any reason. There is absolutely no obligatition to uphold the Constitution whatsoever.

Now granted, it is still viewed as reference, but has no validity in practice. For the most part, any debate over the "constitutionality" of something, is mainly for public consumption in political considerations.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 



That's like asking why I chose 1929 for the Great Depression to start. But if you are looking for further evidence that 1933 was the year which the US Constitution was suspended, I will submit the following:


With the nation bankrupt and insolvent, the U.S. Constitution was suspended in 1933 with Congressional approval and by the Executive Order of President Franklin D. Roosevelt when he asked for,"Broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe."


First, I believe this is an incomplete quote taken out of context. Second, this quote is being seriously misrepresented as to its meaning. Context. Every action FDR did was done through Congress, which enacted most of the laws he asked for between 1933 and 1939, the New Deal era. Unlike George W Bush who acts mostly by SECRET Executive Orders, ALL of FDRs XOs are available to anyone who wants to read them. NO ONE has suspended the US Con BEFORE George W Bush. Even in War 2!

[edit on 2/24/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 




I believe this is either a mis-quote or a quote taken out of context.


I fail to see how you have reached your erroneous supposition. The quotes I have cited are a matter of public record.



Every action FDR did was done through Congress, which enacted most of the laws he asked for between 1933 and 1939, the New Deal era.


The suspension of the Constitution did not grant FDR the powers of a dictator. Instead, it gave him the power to transfer the sovereignty of the United States of America into the hands of the receivers of the bankruptcy of the nation, the international banker-elite.



It was not only the Federal government that became the private property of the elite international bankers. State government as well, having already relinquished their sovereignty to the Federal Government in the Civil War, are included as default payment. Where states were once sovereign republics, they are now designated as Federal Districts superimposed on the pre-existing borders. For example, the republic of Arizona (Ariz.) has been designated as the federal STATE OF ARIZONA (AZ). Note the all capital print in the latter. In an even clearer example, if you were to file a federal court case in Colorado, the heading would read “IN THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO” not “in the state of…” And even this is not the worst of it.

Your individual sovereignty as an American, became and remains the private property of people like the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers. It is no exaggeration to say that you are indeed a slave, in the most literal sense of the word. Your U.S. Citizenship identifies you as the private property of receivers of the U.S. bankruptcy, and as a private corporation designated numerically by Social Security and otherwise as your given name printed in all capital letters. (Look at your driver’s license, your credit card, etc. All caps.) American persons were once afforded that which is designated as inalienable by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These sovereign individual rights now remain suspended and superseded, by the privileges and immunities of the incorporated U.S. Citizen, as a matter of public policy...


I sense that you are not a big fan of Dubya's policies either. But you have to understand that his actions, his consolidation of power in the Executive Branch, were only possible because of what was done so many years ago and never reversed.

The only way to reverse this would be to put our economy in the hands of the people, and not the international banking cartel. The Federal Reserve System must be abolished before sovereignty can be regained. America must own America once again. JFK tried to do this, starting with the issuance of $5-billion in Silver Certificates. This was money backed by American silver, not a loan from the privately owned Federal Reserve bank. Where are those Silver Cerificates today?



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


. . his consolidation of power in the Executive Branch, were only possible because of what was done so many years ago and never reversed.


OK, help me. HOW could that "power" taken in 1933 have been reversed then and if not yet done, then how can it be reversed today?



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


I think perhaps you are still confusing the suspension of Constitutional authority under FDR with the Patriot Act under Bush. The suspension of the Constitution did not give the Executive absolute power. The power of the Legislative branch was diminished to some degree, but did not swing sharply out of balance with the Executive until the Bush Administration today. Well, to be more accurate, the power of Congress has been slowly diminished through many administrations, thanks to the back door being left open by FDR, but never to the extent we are seeing now.

Just because the Constitution was suspended, does not mean there were not statutes in place to be enforced.

I will return in a moment...





[edit on 2/24/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


The only way the situation can be "reversed" and Constitutional authority to be restored, is for the United States of America to be taken out of receivership. This is what JFK was trying to do, by issuing money directly from the government, and bypassing a loan from the Federal Reserve Bank. The money issued by the Fed today is illegal under the Constitution. This is yet another piece of evidence indicating that the Constitution is no longer valid.



Article One Section 10 of the US Constitution declares it forbidden to "coin money, emit billes of credit, make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts."


This is why JFK issued "Silver Cerificates" which were backed in real silver by the US Treasury.

Today's currency has no true value, and actually represents debt. The only thing that keeps it afloat, is promises that debt will be repaid. Look into fractional reserve lending.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 



Article One Section 10 of the US Constitution declares it forbidden to "coin money, emit bills of credit, make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts."


I think we’re mixing oranges and apples. First, here is a complete copy of Article 1, section 10, mentioned above. The crucial part omitted from above is that this article APPLIES AGAINST THE STATES and is not against the Congress. 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.”

Simply put, NO state shall coin money. Then, NO state shall emit bills of credit, a device that would have the same effect as what we call currency, a promissory note - IOU - backed by the state. NO state shall make any laws in support of paper “money” as legal tender except a state may make gold or silver legal tender. Many years ago, there was a Federal statute limiting the penny as legal tender to fifty. That is, anyone had to accept up to 50 pennies in payment, but now, there is no limit on the number of pennies. Prior to the 16th Amendment, we had the First Bank of the United States. See External Source.


The First Bank of the United States was a bank chartered by the United States Congress on February 25, 1791. The charter was for 20 years. The Bank was created to handle the financial needs and requirements of the central government of the newly formed United States. Prior to this, each of the thirteen individual colonies had their own banks, issued their own currencies and had their own financial institutions and policies.

In the last decade of the eighteenth century - 1790s - the United States had just three banks but more than fifty different currencies in circulation: English, Spanish, French and Portuguese coinage, and scrip issued by some of the states. Supporters of the new bank argued that if the nation was to grow and to prosper, it needed a universally accepted standard coinage and this would best be provided by a United States Mint, aided and supported by a national bank. The values of these currencies were wildly unstable and made commerce very difficult. To get the bank bill through the Congress, Hamilton struck a deal with several of its Southern members to support their efforts to move the nation's capital from Philadelphia to the banks of the Potomac. en.wikipedia.org...



This is why JFK issued "Silver Certificates" which were backed in real silver by the US Treasury. Today's currency has no true value, and actually represents debt. The only thing that keeps it afloat, is promises that debt will be repaid. Look into fractional reserve lending.


JFK did not “issue silver certificates.” Silver certificates had been in circulation for decades. They were one of 4 categories of currency issued in the United States under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. That was the implementing statute for the newly adopted 16th Amendment. It set forth 4 categories of paper money.

1) Gold certificates, with a yellow color seal. These bills could be taken to the US Treasury and redeemed in gold coins. In 1933 the law was changed making the possession of such gold coins as money a crime. The people cheerfully turned in their gold coins because before that order, the value of gold was $20 an ounce. When FDR called in the gold, he set the value at $35 an ounce nearly doubling the old price. No one complained.

2) Silver certificates using blue colored seals. Like gold, the silver certificates could be taken to the US Treasury and redeemed in silver coins. Those remained in use until about 1970 or so, when they too were withdrawn from circulation. By that time, no one carried money in gold or silver coins. So no one complained about that either because the $1 silver dollar had one ounce of silver in it, but silver was trading for less than $1.

3) The third category of printed money was Untied States Notes issued by the US Treasury and were in reality IOUs issued by the US. They were marked by red colored seals. You will occasionally see a $2 bill as a US Note. As the banks receive them in the normal course of business, they are also taken out of circulation.

4) Federal Reserve Notes. Issued since 1913, but after about 1970, the ONLY form of currency issued in the US. These notes employ green colored seals. Because this money is backed only by the “full faith and credit” of the United States, it is called FIAT money.

To see what power the Constitution giants to Congress, read this: Article 1. Section 8. “The Congress shall have power . . To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To 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, or in any department or officer thereof.”

I hope this helps clarify the questions about money.

[edit on 2/24/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 




Article 10 Is Against The States, Not Congress


Not according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A ruling on the issue of legal tender as mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, states in part:


It declares that 'no state shall coin money, emit bills of credit, make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.' These prohibitions, associated with the powers granted to Congress 'to coin money, and to regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin' most obviously constitute members of the same family, being upon the same subject and governed by the same policy.

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...


Another ruling by the Supreme Court declared, in part:



They appertain rather to the execution of an important trust invested by the Constitution, and to the obligation to fulfill that trust on the part of the government, namely, the trust and the duty of creating and maintaining a uniform and pure metallic standard of value throughout the Union. The power of coining money and of regulating its value was delegated to Congress by the Constitution for the very purpose, as assigned by the framers of that instrument, of creating and preserving the uniformity and purity of such standard of value...

If the medium which the government was authorized to create and establish could immediately be expelled, and substituted by one it had neither created, estimated, nor authorized -- one possessing no intrinsic value -- then the power conferred by the Constitution would be useless -- wholly fruitless of every end it was designed to accomplish. Whatever functions Congress are, by the Constitution, authorized to perform, they are, when the public good requires it, bound to perform; and on this principle, having emitted a circulating medium, a standard of value indispensable for the purposes of the community, and for the action of the government itself, they are accordingly authorized and bound in duty to prevent its debasement and expulsion, and the destruction of the general confidence and convenience, by the influx and substitution of a spurious coin in lieu of the constitutional currency.

Thus, from diverse pronouncements and opinions of the United States Supreme Court, a steady allegiance to the original and true intent of our founding fathers in reference to the monetary provisions of the U.S. Constitution can be discerned... it was considered heresy to intimate any power in the federal government to issue any paper money. The adherence of the Supreme Court to the intent of the framers must surely have had a beneficial effect upon our nation...


I will return shortly to reply further...


[edit on 2/24/0808 by jackinthebox]





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join