Fareed Zakaria: The founding fathers

[Robert Prey]

Orwellian Doublethink

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.



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



From an act passed in 1793 (1 Stat 300)


From the ninth Congress in 1806 (2 Stat 374)


This is what you said in an earlier post.


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.

So the State cannot force me to pay sales tax because it cannot make anything but gold and silver a tender, but I must pay the sales tax because the Feds don't care what the States powers may be. And you do not see any contradiction. The Founders were perfectly lucid when writing these clauses which to a any rational person are clearly contradictory. Have you read the book "1984"???? Can 2 plus 2 equal 5 if the government so decrees when you know very well it is 4?

 

[ngc6205]

So the State cannot force me to pay sales tax because it cannot make anything but gold and silver a tender, but I must pay the sales tax because the Feds don't care what the States powers may be. And you do not see any contradiction. The Founders were perfectly lucid when writing these clauses which to a any rational person are clearly contradictory. Have you read the book "1984"???? Can 2 plus 2 equal 5 if the government so decrees when you know very well it is 4?

Nonsense. I never said that the feds don't care what the state powers be. You are projecting your erroneous thought process into my statements AGAIN. Every citizen is subject to two separate but concurrent governments: a federal government and a state government. There are things that the federal government can do that the states cannot, like make treaties with other countries. There are things that the states can do exclusively, like regulate intrastate commerce and establish local governments etc. There are things that are shared between the two, such as setting up courts and creating and collecting taxes. The power of establishing a legal tender is PROHIBITED to the STATES except for gold and silver coin. There is NO such prohibition on the federal government.

Your car sales tax example fails because while it is a state tax being collected, the federal government can and does determine what is legal tender THROUGHOUT the country. To put this as simply as possible, Robert Prey is wrong.

 

[ngc6205]

Robert Prey is wrong again.

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

Nonsense. Those acts do "...regulate the value" but they also establish the different coins as legal tender within the United States.

From "American state papers Part 3, Volume 3":
Congressman Lowndes presented a report of a committee to the House of Representatives on January 26, 1819...

That the laws of the United States make all gold and silver coins issued from their Mint, and Spanish dollars, and the parts of such dollars, a legal tender for the payment of debts. The gold coins of Great Britain, Portugal, France, Spain, and the dominions of Spain, and the crowns and five-franc pieces of France, are also declared to be a tender, by an act passed on the 29th of April, 1816. These coins, excepting the five-franc pieces, had been made legal by two earlier acts, which had been allowed to expire; and their renewal, with slight modifications, must be attributed not to a disregard of the inconveniences which the use of coins, so various and unequal in their purity, must produce, but to the exigencies of a country endeavoring suddenly to recover a specie circulation.

Let me restate the obvious...Robert Prey is wrong.

 

[Robert Prey]

Nonsense. Those acts do "...regulate the value" but they also establish the different coins as legal tender within the United States.

From "American state papers Part 3, Volume 3":
Congressman Lowndes presented a report of a committee to the House of Representatives on January 26, 1819...


Let me restate the obvious...Robert Prey is wrong.

Now you surely do agree, that the Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land, correct?
And you surely cannot point to any Amendment that repeals Art., I., Sect. 10, correct?
Then ART. I, Sect 10 must still be the Supreme Law of the land. Now then, are you aware of any courts, any jurisdictions that uphold Art. I, Sec. 10? If I cannot decline to pay sales tax on a car, then what use is ARt. I, Sec. 10? Why is it there, never obeyed since about 1971 but never amended? If the Founders knew very well that irredeemable paper would one day be allowed to be legal tender, then why not give the congress the power to print such currency? Why the debate over the words "and emit bills of credit" and the motion to strike the clause carried? I am afraid this Orwellian conundrum you have created for yourself you must admit is impossible to reconcile. A equals A Two plus two equals four, not five. And the only tender that can be lawfully enforced throughout the states is Gold and Silver Coin because thats' what the Constitution says.

 

[ngc6205]

Now you surely do agree, that the Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land, correct?
And you surely cannot point to any Amendment that repeals Art., I., Sect. 10, correct?

Both correct.

Then ART. I, Sect 10 must still be the Supreme Law of the land. Now then, are you aware of any courts, any jurisdictions that uphold Art. I, Sec. 10?

I am sure that all of the federal courts in the U.S. uphold Art. 1, Sec. 10. What is flawed in this discussion is YOUR interpretation of Art. 1, Sec. 10.

If I cannot decline to pay sales tax on a car, then what use is ARt. I, Sec. 10? Why is it there, never obeyed since about 1971 but never amended? If the Founders knew very well that irredeemable paper would one day be allowed to be legal tender, then why not give the congress the power to print such currency? Why the debate over the words "and emit bills of credit" and the motion to strike the clause carried? I am afraid this Orwellian conundrum you have created for yourself you must admit is impossible to reconcile. A equals A Two plus two equals four, not five. And the only tender that can be lawfully enforced throughout the states is Gold and Silver Coin because thats' what the Constitution says.

No. I have not created any conundrum for myself. The only problem here is your flawed interpretation. Once again, Robert Prey is wrong.

 

[Robert Prey]

Both correct.

I am sure that all of the federal courts in the U.S. uphold Art. 1, Sec. 10. What is flawed in this discussion is YOUR interpretation of Art. 1, Sec. 10. ].

All of the federal courts? But you claim Art. I,Sec. 10 only applies to the States. OK. Do you know of any State Courts that uphold the clause? Or as part of a "living" constitution, is the clause in fact DEAD?

 

[ngc6205]

All of the federal courts?

The Constitution is national, so why not the federal courts?

But you claim Art. I,Sec. 10 only applies to the States.

It isn't a claim, it is a fact that it only applies to the states. That doesn't mean that federal courts would not rule on a case concerning the NATIONAL Constitution.

OK. Do you know of any State Courts that uphold the clause? Or as part of a "living" constitution, is the clause in fact DEAD?

I do not know of any recent cases in state courts concerning the legal tender portion of that clause. The clause is obviously not dead. States do not enter into treaties or grant letters of marque. States are still prohibited from coining money or emitting bills of credit. Ex-post facto laws can still be challenged and states cannot grant titles of nobility.

Once again, the federal government has the power to determine legal tender nationwide. A state can make legal tender laws within its borders if it is not in conflict with Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1. However, it cannot override the federal law concerning legal tender, it can only add to it. Persons within the United States are subject to at least TWO jurisdictions. One national and one state.

"[T]he Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the state and federal governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people--who were, in Hamilton’ words, ‘the only proper objects of government."
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).

"The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National. ..."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).

"The United States is not a foreign sovereignty as regards the several States, but is a concurrent, and, within its jurisdiction, paramount sovereignty. Every citizen of a State is a subject of two distinct sovereignties, having concurrent jurisdiction in the State,-concurrent as to place and persons, though distinct as to subject-matter."
Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U.S. 130, 136 (1876); Mondou v. New York, N.H., & H.R. Co., 223 U.S. 1, 57 (1912).

 

[Robert Prey]

NGC6205 wrote:
"Once again, the federal government has the power to determine legal tender nationwide. A state can make legal tender laws within its borders if it is not in conflict with Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1. However, it cannot override the federal law concerning legal tender."

Can you cite any thing in the Constitution that empowers the Federal Government to determine what Legal Tender is? It's a simple question, and does not require a host of irrelevant, unconstitutional citations.

 

[ngc6205]

NGC6205 wrote:
"Once again, the federal government has the power to determine legal tender nationwide. A state can make legal tender laws within its borders if it is not in conflict with Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1. However, it cannot override the federal law concerning legal tender."

Can you cite any thing in the Constitution that empowers the Federal Government to determine what Legal Tender is? It's a simple question, and does not require a host of irrelevant, unconstitutional citations.

Nothing I have posted is irrelevant. No citation I have used is unconstitutional. Your BELIEF about something does not make it unconstitutional. I have already answered the question.

What it comes down to is that you have INTERPRETED what the Constitution says. Unfortunately for you, in the United States, the courts determine the correct interpretation of the Constitution and laws. You interpretation runs counter to the interpretation of the courts. Therefore, you are wrong.

Has the Supreme Court ruled one way and then later changed its interpretation in a later case? Yes. However, that does not negate the FACT that the current interpretation of the Supreme Court is the current law. Considering that case precedent concerning legal tender dates back about 150 years, it is highly unlikely that the court will ever rule differently. You cannot ignore a law because of your interpretation. Your interpretation of law means NOTHING legally. You may not like it, but it still means that you are wrong.

 

[Robert Prey]

Nothing I have posted is irrelevant. No citation I have used is unconstitutional. Your BELIEF about something does not make it unconstitutional. I have already answered the question.

So humor me. Answer it again. You have not answered it because you can't. And I have cited chapter and verse of the Convention debates as to the question of whether to empower the congress to emit bills of credit which was roundly rejected. Art. I Sec. 10 is only there to make that Art. I, Sec. 8 prohibition by omission absolute. That the courts no longer obey the Constitution is nothing new. Happens all the time. But that does not make it right, nor are those decisions superior to the Constitution. Slavery was upheld by the Constitution in the Dredd Scott case. But that did not prevent the abrogation of that law by citizen jurors who knew that the Supreme Court was not the Supreme Law of the Land.

 

[ngc6205]

So humor me. Answer it again. You have not answered it because you can't.

I did answer, just not directly.

Under the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, and to issue circulating notes for the money borrowed, its power to define the quality and force of those notes as currency is as broad as the like power over a metallic currency under the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. Under the two powers, taken together, congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes.

And I have cited chapter and verse of the Convention debates as to the question of whether to empower the congress to emit bills of credit which was roundly rejected.

The notes on the debates are not law. Never have been and never will be.

Art. I Sec. 10 is only there to make that Art. I, Sec. 8 prohibition by omission absolute.

No it isn't. I showed in the debates how the discussion on Aug. 28, 1787 was about prohibitions on state powers. Just because you can't see that only means that you have a reading comprehension problem.

That the courts no longer obey the Constitution is nothing new.

According to you and it is only your opinion.

Happens all the time. But that does not make it right, nor are those decisions superior to the Constitution.

You still don't get it. The Supreme Court has the final say on the interpretation of the Constitution. You may think that they are wrong and you are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is, your opinion.

Slavery was upheld by the Constitution in the Dredd Scott case. But that did not prevent the abrogation of that law by citizen jurors who knew that the Supreme Court was not the Supreme Law of the Land.

Actually, as far as citizenship was concerned, the Dred Scott decision was law until Congress enacted certain citizenship laws and the reconstruction amendments after which, it made the decision moot.

Once again, you are wrong.

 

[Robert Prey]

NGC6305 wrote:
"I did answer, just not directly.
Under the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, and to issue circulating notes for the money borrowed, its power to define the quality and force of those notes as currency is as broad as the like power over a metallic currency under the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. Under the two powers, taken together, congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes."

Comment: No, you did not answer directly because you can't. It isn't there. All you can do is to repeat the tortured rationalizations of others that permit what the Const. forbids.

The motion to delete (and emit bills of credit) together with Art. I.,Sec. 10 cut off any other rational interpretation.

For the interpretation of this record, Madison, the best possible witness, has left this note: "Striking out the words cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts."

Moreover, Madison's notes are acceptable as evidence in any court of law.

 

[Robert Prey]

NGC6205 wrote:
"I do not know of any recent cases in state courts concerning the legal tender portion of that clause. The clause is obviously not dead."

The clause is not dead you say, but you don't know of any cases where it is being upheld. Neither do I. So, while you say the clause is still in force, it is obviously not in force. And yet, you see no contradiction, though it has never been amended. So what you have here is a classic case of Orwellian Doublethink. Because I actually think you are serious.

 

[ngc6205]

NGC6305 wrote:
"I did answer, just not directly.
Under the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, and to issue circulating notes for the money borrowed, its power to define the quality and force of those notes as currency is as broad as the like power over a metallic currency under the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. Under the two powers, taken together, congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes."

Comment: No, you did not answer directly because you can't. It isn't there. All you can do is to repeat the tortured rationalizations of others that permit what the Const. forbids.

Article 1 Section 8 under the power to borrow and the power over currency.

The motion to delete (and emit bills of credit) together with Art. I.,Sec. 10 cut off any other rational interpretation.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 10 ARE PROHIBITIONS ON THE STATES ONLY. It is clear even from Madison's notes on the debates that those clauses are prohibitions on the states and not the federal government. If you cannot even read Madison's notes properly, why do adamantly believe you have the correct interpretation?

For the interpretation of this record, Madison, the best possible witness, has left this note: "Striking out the words cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts."

Let's look at the entire footnote instead of just one part of it.

This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, 24 and particularly for making the bills a tender 24 either for public or private debts

He did not explain why he thought that striking out the words 'and emit bills' would leave the power to emit bills, and deny the power to make them a tender in payment of debts. Also, Mr. Gerry proposed to included the prohibitions from Section 10 also against the federal government by duplicating them in section 9 and his motion was not seconded.

Moreover, Madison's notes are acceptable as evidence in any court of law.

Madison's notes are not law. They might be used in a discussion about the Constitution and I have my doubts about whether they would be considered 'evidence'. However, Madison's notes are definitely not law.

 

[ngc6205]

NGC6205 wrote:
"I do not know of any recent cases in state courts concerning the legal tender portion of that clause. The clause is obviously not dead."

The clause is not dead you say, but you don't know of any cases where it is being upheld. Neither do I. So, while you say the clause is still in force, it is obviously not in force. And yet, you see no contradiction, though it has never been amended. So what you have here is a classic case of Orwellian Doublethink. Because I actually think you are serious.

No, it isn't Orwellian Doublethink. Actually, what it is is a fallacy, except it is you. You came to a conclusion from premises that do not support the conclusion. Just because the two of us do not know of any current cases does not mean that the clause isn't being enforced or even that there are not any current cases. In order for a court to rule on anything, a party has to properly bring the issue before the court.

Once again, Robert Prey is wrong.

ETA: To be fair, I reread what I wrote, "I do not know of any recent cases in state courts concerning the legal tender portion of that clause. The clause is obviously not dead." That is also a fallacy in that the conclusion is not supported by the premise in that statement. However, the only evidence that could be used to show the clause is dead would be if ONE OF THE STATES attempted to do one of the prohibited activities. Without evidence to the contrary, the clause is not dead.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Taken from his last Charlie Rose interview:

Whenever we have a problem, we tend to think that our Constitution is the best ever created in the history of the world. The people who wrote the Constitution were demi-gods, it never needs to be changed. Our political system is the best in the world. The truth is we have a pretty complicated, antiquated system that’s grown pretty dysfunctional.

Do you agree with Zakaria's views here?

Did he specify what part of the Constitution he doesn't like? I'd like to see him at least rule out user error before he starts bad-mouthing our founding documents.

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head

 

[Robert Prey]

However, the only evidence that could be used to show the clause is dead would be if ONE OF THE STATES attempted to do one of the prohibited activities. Without evidence to the contrary, the clause is not dead.

Let me cite the "authority" of a poster with the moniker "Thinker" who categorically stated that if I tried to use Art I., Sec. 10 in order to decline to pay the sales tax on a car paid for in FRNS, it would be to no avail.

 

[ngc6205]

Let me cite the "authority" of a poster with the moniker "Thinker" who categorically stated that if I tried to use Art I., Sec. 10 in order to decline to pay the sales tax on a car paid for in FRNS, it would be to no avail.

First, the 'Thinker' designation is a function of the forum software and not anything I did except reaching a particular number of posts. Look under your username.

As far as the rest of your assertions, go ahead and try it. BTW, Robert Prey is wrong.

 

[Robert Prey]

First, the 'Thinker' designation is a function of the forum software and not anything I did except reaching a particular number of posts. Look under your username.

As far as the rest of your assertions, go ahead and try it. BTW, Robert Prey is wrong.

Well, as an avid student of the Money Issue, I just happen to know of three such cases that went before the State courts. In the first, the individual protested a minor traffic ticket on the grounds that the fine was designated in a form of money not sanctioned by law. AS it happens, this was not only supported by the Constitution, but also by State Statuette. The result? The judge refused to hear the case and instead suspended the Driver's license.

In the 2nd Case, an individual refused to purchase a village vehicle sticker in a form of money not sanctioned by law, but to show his lawful intent, he offered a form of promissory note called a Public Office Money Certificate with the proper amount printed in dollars, redeemable in only Lawful money pending a court determination of what that was (legal tender). The village accepted the POMC and tried to cash it (unsuccessfully.) So it came to court and the defendant demanded a Jury Trial. Now what do you think would happen if a Jury was allowed to see what the Constitution says? Probably most jurors would simply goose-step to whatever the judge tells them, but supposing there is just one rare person on that jury who knows his Jury rights? One person could vote "not guilty" and who knows, that single vote could bring down the entire system. So, what is the court to do to prevent such a calamity? What the judge did, was to order the parties into a back room (away from the public and the jury and any reporters that might be present), and with an obvious arrangement with the Prosecutor, the Prosecutor presented a "Motion In Limine" (a motion to limited the subject matter of the trail before the jury) under penalty of Contempt. And what do you think was to be censored from the trial? Why, the Constitution, of course. That little book we were all supposed to learn about and be tested in the 8th grade so that we all knew our rights. But we were never taught what actually happens when you try to assert those rights. And so, not being able to make a defense of any kind, the person was convicted.

The third case involved an individual who was owed money by the state, and demanded he be paid only in lawful money, and not FRNS. This particular case made it all the way to the Supreme Court. And the Court (actually the clerks who screen the cases) instead of deciding the case on its merits, refused to take the case.

So much for the Living Constitution and Art. I, Sec. 10 alive and well ... somewhere.

 

[Drachasor]

Too bad the constitution doesn't say what you think it says, eh? The Federal Government is rather explicitly allowed to make legal tender, and what they do affects all States in the Union.