Fareed Zakaria: The founding fathers

[ngc6205]

Upside down and backwards. Art. I,Sec. 10 purpose was to prevent the Congress from making a paper currency a legal tender. It might be helpful to read more of Madison's Notes on the subject:

There were many friends of Paper Money on August 16, 1787 when the discussion arose on Art. I, Sec. 8. The proposed wording was:
"The Legislature of the United States shall have the power to... coin money...and emit bills on the credit of the United States." And then came the arguments:
"Mr. G. Morris moved to strike out "and emit bills of credit." If the United States had credit, such bills would be unnecessary; if they had not, unjust and useless.
Madison: Would it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best.
Mr. Wilson: It would have a most salutary influence on the credit of the United States to remove the possibility of paper money.
"The motion for striking out carried.

Here is Madison's account on Art. I, Sec. 10:
Mr. Wilson and Mr. Sherman moved to insert after the words "coin money" the words "nor emit bills of credit, nor make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts" making these prohibitions absolute, instead of making the measures allowable with the consent of the Legislature of the U.S.
Mr. Sherman thought this a favourable crisis for crushing paper money. If the consent of the Legislature could authorize emissions of it, the friends of paper money would make every exertion to get into the Legislature in order to license it.


Is there something about the words "crushing paper money" that is ambiguous or unclear?

What part of the TWO WORDS, "NO STATE" is ambiguous or unclear?

ETA: By your thinking, the federal government cannot enter into treaties with other countries. If that clause applies to the federal government, then what is the purpose of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3? That clause forbids the federal government from passing a bill of attainder or ex-post facto law which are also mentioned in Section 10 Clause 1. So why would it be in there twice? Because, it is obvious that Section 9 prohibits the federal government from doing certain things and Section 10 prohibits the STATES from doing certain things.

 

[ngc6205]

Yes, the right has been abused. But it has also safeguarded against tyranny. It's the human condition. In the end, the jury system is the worst possible system of determining justice -- except for all the other legal systems. Now that you are aware of the right or as you say the "power" and you are called to a case where a person get's a life sentence for swiping a slice of pizza (true case in California as I recall as per 3 strikes law) and the Facts are not in dispute, how do you vote? And how do you argue the case? Do you argue, "Let us do what is just" or do you argue that "The law is the Law" or perhaps "Hey, if you can't do the time, then don't do the crime."

The role of the jury is to determine FACTS. The role of the court is to determine the meaning of the law and to instruct the jury on that law.

 

[Darat]

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.

What other nations did seems a tad irrelevant however the race relations act was not the same as what happened in the USA. You had race discrimination in your legal code, the UK didn't (in terms of British born citizens).

 

[Darth Rotor]

I see.. they replaced "Nobles count more than commoners" with "People from some states count more than people from other states".

How about you experiment a bit with our new-fangled, progressive European "every vote counts the same" approach?

Don't have to, each vote is weighted the same here.

We vote at

local

sate

federal level

Each vote is one vote.

The EC remains as good a protection now as it was when Virginia and New York were the biggest dogs in town.

The biggest problem is getting more people out to vote.

 

[Robert Prey]

The role of the jury is to determine FACTS. The role of the court is to determine the meaning of the law and to instruct the jury on that law.

That's what judges will say to the juries of today, but of course it is false. The jury has both the power and the right to determine both fact and law. This was pronounced from the highest court by Chief Justice John Jay in the very first jury trail held before the Supreme Court and as if speaking to and from all judges and juries for all time, here is Jay's jury charge:

It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.

Geigia v Brailsford, 3 Dallas l

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0003_0001_ZO.html

 

[Robert Prey]

What part of the TWO WORDS, "NO STATE" is ambiguous or unclear?

ETA: By your thinking, the federal government cannot enter into treaties with other countries. If that clause applies to the federal government, then what is the purpose of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3? That clause forbids the federal government from passing a bill of attainder or ex-post facto law which are also mentioned in Section 10 Clause 1. So why would it be in there twice? Because, it is obvious that Section 9 prohibits the federal government from doing certain things and Section 10 prohibits the STATES from doing certain things.

Obviously, an irrelevant reply to the convention debates of the Founders on the subject of paper money. It is one constitution, and one section cannot and does not conflict with another.

 

[ngc6205]

Obviously, an irrelevant reply to the convention debates of the Founders on the subject of paper money. It is one constitution, and one section cannot and does not conflict with another.

You claim that Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 prevents the federal government from making FRNs legal tender. By that reasoning, the federal government would not be able to enter into treaties either. After all, the same clause prohibits the making of treaties and confederations. Yet, Article 2 expressly gives the power to enter into treaties to the President with consent of the Senate. Also, you totally ignore the question as to why the prohibition against ex-post facto laws is listed twice.

Additionally, the words, "No State" ARE relevant to the debates on the Constitution and I'm going to use the same quote that you use to prove it.

The quote that you are so fond of referencing comes from the Aug. 28, 1787 notes. Here is a more complete quote from that day.

Art: XII. [FN8] being [FN12] taken up.

Mr. WILSON & Mr. SHERMAN moved to insert after the words "coin money" the words "nor emit bills of credit, nor make any thing but gold & silver coin a tender in payment of debts" making these prohibitions absolute, instead of making the measures allowable (as in the XIII art:) with the consent of the Legislature of the U. S.

Mr. GHORUM thought the purpose would be as well secured by the provision of art: XIII which makes the consent of the Genl Legislature necessary, and that in that mode, no opposition would be excited; whereas an absolute prohibition of paper money would rouse the most desperate opposition from its partizans.

Mr. SHERMAN thought this a favorable crisis for crushing paper money. If the consent of the Legislature could authorise emissions of it, the friends of paper money, would make every exertion to get into the Legislature in order to licence it.

The Article under discussion is Article XII. Some may ask, what are the Articles? Well, they are referencing the rough draft Constitution that are included in the debates from Aug. 6, 1787. Article XII listed things that states could not do at all. Article XIII listed things the states could not do unless Congress gave its consent. Here are the two articles from the Aug. 6, 1787 notes.

XII
No State shall coin money; nor grant letters of marque and reprisal; nor enter into any Treaty, alliance, or confederation; nor grant any title of Nobility.

XIII
No State, without the consent of the Legislature of the United States, shall emit bills of credit, or make any thing but specie a tender in payment of debts; nor lay imposts or duties on imports; nor keep troops or ships of war in time of peace; nor enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with any foreign power; nor engage in any war, unless it shall be actually invaded by enemies, or the danger of invasion be so imminent, as not to admit of delay, until the Legislature of the United States can be consulted.

Notice that both articles refer to prohibitions on the states and as I just stated, Article XII were absolute prohibitions and Article XIII listed prohibitions that could be overturned by consent of the Congress. On Aug. 28, 1787, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Sherman suggested that the bills of credit and gold & silver coin phrase be moved to Article XII which would make "these prohibitions absolute". IOW, deny them to the states completely. If the phrase was left in Article XII, then Congress could consent to allow the states to issue bills of credit and to make them legal tender. The context of the discussion is clear. Mr. Wilson, Sherman and Ghorum were referring to a prohibition on the states.

Nothing in that part of the debates refers to any prohibition on the federal government in regards to money.

 

[Robert Prey]

A Resonse to Doubletalk

You claim that Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 prevents the federal government from making FRNs legal tender. By that reasoning, the federal government would not be able to enter into treaties either. After all, the same clause prohibits the making of treaties and confederations. Yet, Article 2 expressly gives the power to enter into treaties to the President with consent of the Senate. .

Art I., sec. 10 denies the Feds the power to even determine legal tender, since the clause clearly makes the States the enforcer of legal tender as the States are the enforcer of debts and property rights. And Art I., sec 8, debated the issue of allowing Bills of Credit and denied that power by not including the clause. The stuff about treaties and alliances simply affirms that only the Feds have that power, otherwise there would be no United States but only Divided States. Obviously.

 

[ngc6205]

Art I., sec. 10 denies the Feds the power to even determine legal tender, since the clause clearly makes the States the enforcer of legal tender as the States are the enforcer of debts and property rights. And Art I., sec 8, debated the issue of allowing Bills of Credit and denied that power by not including the clause. The stuff about treaties and alliances simply affirms that only the Feds have that power, otherwise there would be no United States but only Divided States. Obviously.

No. Art. 1 Section 10 is only prohibition on states. It does NOT take away any power from the federal government. Your interpretation is an absurd reading of the clause. If each state were allowed to solely determine what is legal tender within their borders, then there would be competing currencies, that are not necessarily compatible, throughout the states.

 

[Robert Prey]

No. Art. 1 Section 10 is only prohibition on states. It does NOT take away any power from the federal government. Your interpretation is an absurd reading of the clause. If each state were allowed to solely determine what is legal tender within their borders, then there would be competing currencies, that are not necessarily compatible, throughout the states.

Art. I Sec. 10 (as you very well know) prohibits the states from determining what legal tender is since the Constitution is clear as to what it is. Under your Orwellian interpretation, there would indeed be competing Legal Tenders -- one for the States and one for the Feds, an absurd situation on its face. Now then, here is a simple question, you apparently admit that the States are indeed prohibited from making any thing but gold and silver coin a tender. Correct? Yes or no?

 

[ngc6205]

Art. I Sec. 10 (as you very well know) prohibits the states from determining what legal tender is since the Constitution is clear as to what it is. Under your Orwellian interpretation, there would indeed be competing Legal Tenders -- one for the States and one for the Feds, an absurd situation on its face. Now then, here is a simple question, you apparently admit that the States are indeed prohibited from making any thing but gold and silver coin a tender. Correct? Yes or no?

It is correct to say that a state can make nothing but gold and silver coin legal tender. However, one state could make a pure silver coin legal tender and nothing else. Another state could make a coin made of pure gold the only legal tender. Another state could make a coin that is 90% silver the legal tender within that state, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

The very first Congress, a Congress that contained several of the members of the Constitutional Convention, enacted the law creating the First Bank of United States and authorized it to circulate notes. I bet that those people knew the intents of the Constitutional Convention better than you do.

 

[Almo]

Other than guys like Madison, Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Mason, Sherman, and their associates I can't think of any off hand, except for Reagan, perhaps.

Hahahaha! He's not in their league. He was popular, but did not invent and implement a government.

 

[Robert Prey]

It is correct to say that a state can make nothing but gold and silver coin legal tender. However, one state could make a pure silver coin legal tender and nothing else. Another state could make a coin made of pure gold the only legal tender. Another state could make a coin that is 90% silver the legal tender within that state, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

The very first Congress, a Congress that contained several of the members of the Constitutional Convention, enacted the law creating the First Bank of United States and authorized it to circulate notes. I bet that those people knew the intents of the Constitutional Convention better than you do.

So, if as you say, a state can make nothing but gold and silver coin a tender, then if I buy new car, for example, and refuse to pay the sales tax on the grounds that I bought the car with FRNs and not gold or silver coin, then I should be able to avoid the tax. That is the logical extension of your claim that the state can make nothing but gold or silver coin a tender? Correct?

 

[ngc6205]

So, if as you say, a state can make nothing but gold and silver coin a tender, then if I buy new car, for example, and refuse to pay the sales tax on the grounds that I bought the car with FRNs and not gold or silver coin, then I should be able to avoid the tax. That is the logical extension of your claim that the state can make nothing but gold or silver coin a tender? Correct?

No.

 

[Robert Prey]

No.

NO? But you just said the States could make nothing but gold and silver coin a tender. Why "no"? Explain. Or have you changed your mind again? The states CAN make something other than gold and silver coin a tender?

 

[ngc6205]

NO? But you just said the States could make nothing but gold and silver coin a tender. Why "no"? Explain. Or have you changed your mind again? The states CAN make something other than gold and silver coin a tender?

I am not saying that states can make things other than gold and silver coin legal tender.

You said...

"That is the logical extension of your claim that the state can make nothing but gold or silver coin a tender? Correct?"

I answered, No. As in that is NOT correct and it isn't a logical extension of my claim either.

I'll expound upon your ridiculous assertion about buying a car. You stated...

"So, if as you say, a state can make nothing but gold and silver coin a tender, then if I buy new car, for example, and refuse to pay the sales tax on the grounds that I bought the car with FRNs and not gold or silver coin, then I should be able to avoid the tax."

No, you cannot avoid the tax on those grounds because the federal government has the power to declare what can be tender.

Let me remind you of what you said a few posts back...

Art I., sec. 10 denies the Feds the power to even determine legal tender,...

That statement is obviously wrong because the very first Congress, after the Constitution, enacted a law concerning lawful tender. Again, since that Congress contained several members of the Constitutional Convention, I think they have a better grasp on the powers of the federal government than you do.

ETA: I haven't changed my mind either. I have clearly stated exactly my position on this issue and that has not changed. You keep making assertions about what I wrote that just are not there.

 

[BenBurch]

...

The biggest problem is getting more people out to vote.

I absolutely agree with you. I helped do GOTV activities here for the Democrats in 2008, but I took almost as many Republicans to the polls because anybody who wanted a ride got one, and the nursing homes had mostly Republicans.

 

[Robert Prey]

I am not saying that states can make things other than gold and silver coin legal tender.

You said...


I answered, No. As in that is NOT correct and it isn't a logical extension of my claim either.

I'll expound upon your ridiculous assertion about buying a car. You stated...


No, you cannot avoid the tax on those grounds because the federal government has the power to declare what can be tender.

Let me remind you of what you said a few posts back...


That statement is obviously wrong because the very first Congress, after the Constitution, enacted a law concerning lawful tender. Again, since that Congress contained several members of the Constitutional Convention, I think they have a better grasp on the powers of the federal government than you do.

ETA: I haven't changed my mind either. I have clearly stated exactly my position on this issue and that has not changed. You keep making assertions about what I wrote that just are not there.

So you say that the States are Prohibited from making any thing but gold or silver coin a tender (true) but the congress has the authority to declare anything they so choose a legal tender (false) including irredeemable paper and you see absolutely no contradiction there, correct?

And if your reference to the First Congress has to do with the Coinage Act of 1792, that is also a false statement since the act only defined and regulated the units of the Money of Account and defined it as a sliver dollar.

 

[ngc6205]

So you say that the States are Prohibited from making any thing but gold or silver coin a tender (true) but the congress has the authority to declare anything they so choose a legal tender (false) including irredeemable paper and you see absolutely no contradiction there, correct?

There isn't a contradiction. There are powers of the federal government that the states do not have. There are powers of state governments and there are powers shared by both. Article 1 Section 8 enumerates powers of Congress, Section 9 prohibits some things of the Federal government, and section 10 prohibits some things from the states.

As I have continuously stated, Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 is a restriction on STATE powers. There is nothing within that section that restricts the federal government.

And if your reference to the First Congress has to do with the Coinage Act of 1792, that is also a false statement since the act only defined and regulated the units of the Money of Account and defined it as a sliver dollar.

It isn't a false statement. Let's quote from the act...

Sec. 16. And be it further enacted, That all the gold and silver coins which shall have been struck at, and issued from the said mint, shall be a lawful tender in all payments whatsoever, those of full weight according to the respective values herein before declared, and those at less than full weight at values proportional to their respective weights.

From an act passed in 1793 (1 Stat 300)

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the first day of July next, foreign gold and silver coins shall pass current as money within the United States, and be a legal tender for the payment of all debts and demands, at the several and respective rates following, and not otherwise, viz:

From the ninth Congress in 1806 (2 Stat 374)

That from and after the passage of this act, foreign gold and silver coins shall pass current as money within the United States, and be a legal tender for the payment of all debts and demands, at the several and respective rates following, and not otherwise, viz:

This is what you said in an earlier post.

Art I., sec. 10 denies the Feds the power to even determine legal tender,...

I have just pointed to three examples where Congress determined what is legal tender. I bet that the members of those sessions of Congress understood the Constitution better than you.

 

[Robert Prey]

I have just pointed to three examples where Congress determined what is legal tender. I bet that the members of those sessions of Congress understood the Constitution better than you.

Those are not examples of Congress determining Legal Tender but carrying out of Art. I, Sec. 8 mandate to "...regulate the value thereof."