Ultra-Farce Whistleblowers Law Set To Pass Criminal Congress

reply to post by mnemeth1


I'm not sure you can even conjure up a thought to decipher the differences between the two? Again, nice try Troll~

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I'm not sure you can even conjure up a thought to decipher the differences between the two? Again, nice try Troll~

I'd say you are the troll since you are the liar.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


Sources: Federalist Papers

Now wait, you stated that Gold and Silver are prohibited which is exactly opposite of what is stated in the Constitution.

Article I is what Congress can and cannot do. It is the powers enumerated to them or lack thereof. In Section 10, it lays out what the State's cannot do. It was put in to ensure that the States and the Federal Government did not conflict upon certain powers.

Federalist Paper 42 explains the reasoning behind the powers enumerated within Article I, Section 8 as follows:

The authority of the existing Congress [given by the Articles of Confederation] is restrained to the regulation of coin STRUCK by their own authority, or that of the respective States. It must be seen at once that the proposed uniformity in the VALUE of the current coin might be destroyed by subjecting that of foreign coin to the different regulations of the different States.

The sole reason was for uniformity and protection of an American currency. So that States could not arbitrarily devalue their currency or inflate it and cause a disruption in Interstate Commerce or Foreign Commerce.

It does not state the Gold and Silver are the only legal tender nor does it state they are prohibited from use.

Further they explicitly state in Article I, Section 10 that the States are prohibited from using anything other than Gold or Silver in their debts.

We find the explanation behind this provision in Federalist Paper 44. Stating as follows:

Had every State a right to regulate the value of its coin, there might be as many different currencies as States, and thus the intercourse among them would be impeded; retrospective alterations in its value might be made, and thus the citizens of other States be injured, and animosities be kindled among the States themselves. The subjects of foreign powers might suffer from the same cause, and hence the Union be discredited and embroiled by the indiscretion of a single member. No one of these mischiefs is less incident to a power in the States to emit paper money, than to coin gold or silver. The power to make any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts, is withdrawn from the States, on the same principle with that of issuing a paper currency.

Again, this was to create solidarity not only among the equal States, but also to give credibility of a new American currency to the rest of the world. The States were limited in paying their debts via gold or silver.

This of course was all blown out of the water when we went off the gold standard and backed our currency upon the GDP of the economy.

Lastly, there is no reference to what or how the People must use because that was not the job nor intent of the Congress. The People are able to determine what they feel to be legal tender for their goods and services when dealing in private contracts.

States = gold and silver must be used to back their debts.
Federal Government = is given no standard on which they can even use to back their monies. They have the open power to determine what that money is standing on. The key word though is very well "Coin".

To usages of the word:
: to make (coinage) by stamping metal
: to convert (metal) into coinage

They feared going to a paper money. It has no value except the paper it is printed on. We accept it as tender because most have faith in that backing. Yet here we all are, in one of the places those that created this country feared the most. Fiat currency with a perception of backing and value.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


You are correct in your arguments.

However, I would like to add that the presumptions made by the founding fathers in regards to a federal currency are indeed wrong.

While they felt the myriad of currencies that result in a free market would hinder commerce, that presumption was not borne out by the facts.

In actuality, competition among currencies resulted, and kept the currencies honest.

In order to get back to "honest" money, that money can not have an arbitrary government imposed monopoly, even if it is backed by gold or silver. History is clear that competing currencies controlled by the market are the only types of currencies that prevent the growth of the State and wide spread inflation.

The market is the only mechanism that can ensure the most widely used currencies remain "honest".

Government control of currencies will always result in inflation and the growth of the State.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Absolutely and a good point to put out. It was a creation of a uniform currency for the time period they were in. It also was to give credit to that currency when dealing with nations of the world.

This was also in place to funnel the dealings of foreign nations to the Federal level.

All in all, one thing was clear. It was to show the rest of the world that this Republic could work and has the backing of the numerous states of the time as shown through ratification of the Constitution. This solidarity is what gave credence to the monies used by the Government.

Beyond that, it is exactly as you stated. Note how the precarious balance between States' Powers and National Powers have been swung wildly and hard into the Nations favor.

LONG LIVE THE IMPERIALIST NATIONAL GOVERNMENT!

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I believe that was the honest intent of a few.

I think there were some shady characters in there too though, particularly Hamilton and Franklin.

You have to love Franklin, whose printing company managed to get the paper money printing contracts of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey.

So here's a guy making a fortune off of printing government issued paper money while at the same time advocating its use. He was also responsible for printing government bonds and all sorts of other fascist nonsense.

Franklin actually argued that gold/silver backing the paper notes didn't give them value.

Franklin was a fascist pig, and Hamilton follows close on his heels.

reply to post by mnemeth1


It goes to show that even the most brilliant minds are reduced to primal conditions under the pressures of power and money.

By and by, I agree with your analysis regarding the whole issue and was not trying to disprove your take upon the monetary understandings of the creators of the Constitution. Just was merely pointing out why such wordage was used.