Fareed Zakaria: The founding fathers

[Robert Prey]

First, the limitation in the Constitution that only gold or silver coin can be made a tender in payment of debts only applies to the states and not the federal government. That is obvious due to the fact the clause begins with 'No State'.

Oh, I see. So the founders intended for two different types of money -- coin for the states and paper for the Feds?

Fact is, states are prohibited from "coining" money but only the congress has the power. Thus, the principle of Separation of Powers was to make sure that while the States are kept out of the money creation business, the Congress issues the money (coin), the states keep the Feds honest by enforcing it and the two entities together make sure that only honest money can be made a tender. The Founders had just been thorough a runaway inflation caused by the paper Continentals but the Founders -- including Roger Sherman -- found the situation as a favorable crises for CRUSHING Paper Money. -- Notes of the Debates of the Federal Constitution of 1787. -- James Madison

 

[BenBurch]

http://www.north-trek.com/mpm/obsoletes/state.htm

State-chartered banks issued scrip early on in our history.

 

[Tony]

I doubt if you could find a nation in the 20th century that did not have significant ethnic minorities that did not also have segregation policies. For example, the UK as evidence by the Race Relations Act of 1965.

"The new Race Relations Act comes into force today making racial discrimination unlawful in public places.

The new act forbids discrimination on the "grounds of colour, race, or ethnic or national origins" in public places and covers both British residents and overseas visitors.

But there have already been claims by anti-racist groups and Labour backbenchers that the new law does not go far enough, as it does not cover housing or employment.

The new law does not make racial discrimination a criminal offence - and only the very worst offenders will be referred by the Attorney General to county court."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/8/newsid_4457000/4457112.stm

I suspect you'd have to go to a relatively ethnically "pure" country like Japan to find anything different. Most segregation, wherever you find it, is largely voluntary.

Whats your point? I don't see how this changes that the US was, contrary to what you said, less free in the in the past than it is now.

 

[Robert Prey]

No, court cases up to the SC level say that scrip is legal money.

It escapes some people who have little civics education, but a SC decision stands at a Constitutional level, and is for all intents and purposes part of the Constitution.
See; Knox v Lee and Parker v Davis

When a SC decision is in conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution rules. And although there have been a number of legal tender cases very wrongly decided, and clearly in conflict with the Constitution, Knox v Lee does not allow for irredeemable paper to be legal tender, but notes (a promise to pay) that one day would be redeemed. Fact is, if the Courts had ruled properly, there wouldn't be any controversy. Nor a 14 trillion dollar debt.

"No one supposes that these government certificates are never to be paid — that the day of specie payments is never to return... Through whatever changes they pass, their ultimate destiny is to be paid. But it is the prerogative of the legislative department to determine when the fit time for payment has come." -- Knox v Lee

 

[Robert Prey]

Third, the Supreme Court upheld the ability of the federal government to create a bank and to have that bank issue circulating notes back in 1819. Since the Justices on that Supreme Court knew and probably corresponded with members of the Constitutional Convention, they probably had a better grasp on the intent of the founders than you do.

And you need to look up the word "note" as it haf always previously been understood, namely a promise to pay -- in other words pay in lawful money. A note payable in lawful money was not scrip.

 

[ngc6205]

Oh, I see. So the founders intended for two different types of money -- coin for the states and paper for the Feds?

Not what I said and not what the Constitution says. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 is specifically directed at the states and is NOT a prohibition on the federal government.

Fact is, states are prohibited from "coining" money but only the congress has the power. Thus, the principle of Separation of Powers was to make sure that while the States are kept out of the money creation business, the Congress issues the money (coin), the states keep the Feds honest by enforcing it and the two entities together make sure that only honest money can be made a tender. The Founders had just been thorough a runaway inflation caused by the paper Continentals but the Founders -- including Roger Sherman -- found the situation as a favorable crises for CRUSHING Paper Money. -- Notes of the Debates of the Federal Constitution of 1787. -- James Madison

The actual facts are that the states, both before and after the Constitution was ratified, continued to charter banks and authorized them to issue paper money. Congress also chartered both the First Bank of the U.S. and Second Bank of the U.S. and both were authorized to issue bank notes. Additionally, after the Civil War, national banks were chartered which also issued notes.

 

[ngc6205]

When a SC decision is in conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution rules. And although there have been a number of legal tender cases very wrongly decided, and clearly in conflict with the Constitution, Knox v Lee does not allow for irredeemable paper to be legal tender, but notes (a promise to pay) that one day would be redeemed. Fact is, if the Courts had ruled properly, there wouldn't be any controversy. Nor a 14 trillion dollar debt.

"No one supposes that these government certificates are never to be paid — that the day of specie payments is never to return... Through whatever changes they pass, their ultimate destiny is to be paid. But it is the prerogative of the legislative department to determine when the fit time for payment has come." -- Knox v Lee

When there is a disagreement upon the meaning of a law or a portion of the Constitution, the Supreme Court makes the determination as to the correct interpretation. So, no, by definition, the Supreme Court is never wrong. The Supreme Court can revisit a decision in a later case and may reverse itself, but at the time of the ruling and until a decision is reversed, the Supreme Court's decision is the correct interpretation. You may disagree with it and you may be able to cite what you feel is ample support for your opinion, but it is just your opinion. Until the Supreme Court agrees with you, your opinion has no legal basis.

 

[ngc6205]

And you need to look up the word "note" as it haf always previously been understood, namely a promise to pay -- in other words pay in lawful money. A note payable in lawful money was not scrip.

Scrip is a term for a substitute for currency which is not legal tender. Since Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender, the term scrip does not apply to them. Also, national bank notes were backed by government bonds and not silver or gold. National bank notes were typically redeemed by the bank that issued them or by the U.S. Treasury either in more national bank notes or U.S. Notes and sometimes coin.

 

[Robrob]

Legal tender can only be gold or silver coin.

LOL!

Oh wait, you're serious?

Bwahahahahahahaha!

 

[Robert Prey]

When there is a disagreement upon the meaning of a law or a portion of the Constitution, the Supreme Court makes the determination as to the correct interpretation. So, no, by definition, the Supreme Court is never wrong. The Supreme Court can revisit a decision in a later case and may reverse itself, but at the time of the ruling and until a decision is reversed, the Supreme Court's decision is the correct interpretation. You may disagree with it and you may be able to cite what you feel is ample support for your opinion, but it is just your opinion. Until the Supreme Court agrees with you, your opinion has no legal basis.

That may be what your Law School teaches, but it isn't correct. The question of what is a law, and what is not a law can ultimately be decided by a Jury. A law is a law if 12 jurors in a case say it is. A law is not a law if one juror in a case says it is not. I refer you to the history of Jury Nullification particularly in cases involving Fugitive Slave Laws where the Supreme Court clearly ruled one way, but Sovereign Jurors of ruled another.
Jurors have the Sovereign right to determine law -- a Common Law right that goes all the way back to the Trial of William Penn in 1670.

 

[Robert Prey]

Not what I said and not what the Constitution says. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 is specifically directed at the states and is NOT a prohibition on the federal government.



The actual facts are that the states, both before and after the Constitution was ratified, continued to charter banks and authorized them to issue paper money. Congress also chartered both the First Bank of the U.S. and Second Bank of the U.S. and both were authorized to issue bank notes. Additionally, after the Civil War, national banks were chartered which also issued notes.

Thus, you conclusion is two types of 'money", coin for the states, and paper for the Feds. Absurd.

And a "note" is a promise to pay. A note is not money but a promise to pay in lawful money.

 

[Robert Prey]

Scrip is a term for a substitute for currency which is not legal tender. Since Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender, the term scrip does not apply to them. Also, national bank notes were backed by government bonds and not silver or gold. National bank notes were typically redeemed by the bank that issued them or by the U.S. Treasury either in more national bank notes or U.S. Notes and sometimes coin.

Federal Reserve Notes are NOT legal tender according to the constitution. Nor is there anything "Federal" about them, being issued by a private banking syndicate, nor are they "Notes" because you can't get any lawful money for them, nor is there anything on Reserve. They are a fraud, pure and simple.

 

[ngc6205]

That may be what your Law School teaches, but it isn't correct. The question of what is a law, and what is not a law can ultimately be decided by a Jury. A law is a law if 12 jurors in a case say it is. A law is not a law if one juror in a case says it is not. I refer you to the history of Jury Nullification particularly in cases involving Fugitive Slave Laws where the Supreme Court clearly ruled one way, but Sovereign Jurors of ruled another.
Jurors have the Sovereign right to determine law -- a Common Law right that goes all the way back to the Trial of William Penn in 1670.

The Supreme Court is a court where generally APPEALS are heard. Juries are used typically at the initial trial level and not in appeals. In an appeal to a higher court, it is the COURT that decides the proper determination of the law.

Jury nullification is where a jury in a particular case decides that a law is unjust or unfair. It may have been common practice 200 years ago, but it isn't now and hasn't been for a long time. Additionally, a case where a jury refused to convict due to jury nullification DID NOT CHANGE THE LAW. The law was still what it was.

As for law school, I have never attended law school. However, I know a lot about the judicial system. In reality, the jury decides facts and is provided the proper interpretation of the law by the court.

 

[ngc6205]

Thus, you conclusion is two types of 'money", coin for the states, and paper for the Feds. Absurd.

And a "note" is a promise to pay. A note is not money but a promise to pay in lawful money.

Again, not what I said. If you don't understand that, then you obviously have a reading comprehension problem.

 

[ngc6205]

Federal Reserve Notes are NOT legal tender according to the constitution. Nor is there anything "Federal" about them, being issued by a private banking syndicate, nor are they "Notes" because you can't get any lawful money for them, nor is there anything on Reserve. They are a fraud, pure and simple.

Where in the Constitution does it say the words, "legal tender" or "lawful money"? The answer is, it doesn't. Legal tender and lawful money are phrases that are or were previously defined within laws written by Congress. Congress has enacted a law making Federal Reserve Notes legal tender. No court case has ever determined otherwise, therefore, Federal Reserve Notes ARE legal tender.

The courts, myself, and most other reasonable people disagree with your interpretation of the Constitution.

Your belief that the Federal Reserve is a private banking syndicate is also absurd. The belief, that some people have, that the system is private is based upon a misunderstanding of its structure or taking various quotes from court cases or individuals out of context.

As for redeeming Federal Reserve Notes, you can go to a bank and ask for coins. Coins are obligations of the U.S. Mint and not the Federal Reserve. Alternatively, you can buy circulating $1 coins directly from the U.S. Mint.
http://catalog.usmint.gov/webapp/wc...storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&identifier=8100

 

[Robert Prey]

Where in the Constitution does it say the words, "legal tender" or "lawful money"? The answer is, it doesn't. Legal tender and lawful money are phrases that are or were previously defined within laws written by Congress. Congress has enacted a law making Federal Reserve Notes legal tender. No court case has ever determined otherwise, therefore, Federal Reserve Notes ARE legal tender.

Comment: The Constitution does say the words "make" and "tender" as in "Make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender." That's better than Legal Tender. It's specific. And it is no news to me that congress has enacted an unconstitutional law. They do it every day.

 

[Robert Prey]

Your belief that the Federal Reserve is a private banking syndicate is also absurd. The belief, that some people have, that the system is private is based upon a misunderstanding of its structure or taking various quotes from court cases or individuals out of context.

Really. Then who owns the Fed?

 

[Robert Prey]

As for redeeming Federal Reserve Notes, you can go to a bank and ask for coins. Coins are obligations of the U.S. Mint and not the Federal Reserve. Alternatively, you can buy circulating $1 coins directly from the U.S. Mint.http://catalog.usmint.gov/webapp/wc...storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&identifier=8100

Cupra/Nickel tokens. Not "coins" as defined by the Constitution and the Coinage Act of 1792.

 

[Robert Prey]

The Supreme Court is a court where generally APPEALS are heard. Juries are used typically at the initial trial level and not in appeals. In an appeal to a higher court, it is the COURT that decides the proper determination of the law.

Jury nullification is where a jury in a particular case decides that a law is unjust or unfair. It may have been common practice 200 years ago, but it isn't now and hasn't been for a long time. Additionally, a case where a jury refused to convict due to jury nullification DID NOT CHANGE THE LAW. The law was still what it was.

As for law school, I have never attended law school. However, I know a lot about the judicial system. In reality, the jury decides facts and is provided the proper interpretation of the law by the court.

In a criminal trial, a jury's "not guilty" verdict is not appeal-able. It is the end of the case. And Jury Nullification most certainly is used today, depending on the knowledge of the Jury and immunity to the Judge's brainwash instructions. Furthermore, the Right of nullification is not only embedded in our Common law, it is also written in some State Constitutions. And when several Nullifications occur, the law is for all practical purposes dead.

 

[ngc6205]

Comment: The Constitution does say the words "make" and "tender" as in "Make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender." That's better than Legal Tender. It's specific. And it is no news to me that congress has enacted an unconstitutional law. They do it every day.

And as I previously stated, that clause obviously only applies to the states since it begins with "No State".