Fareed Zakaria: The founding fathers

[ngc6205]

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.

So you say. Anecdotal stories are not proof. Citation to actual case that can be confirmed is needed.

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).

A "Public Office Money Certificate" is a bogus financial instrument. If you actually believe in that kind of nonsense, then you are more delusional than I thought.

The village accepted the POMC and tried to cash it (unsuccessfully.)

Obviously the clerk did not recognize it for the sovereignoramous nonsense that it was. Of course they were unsuccessful in cashing it since it is worthless.

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.

So you say, how about a case citation.

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 you say, how about a case citation. BTW, a writ for certiorari is not "all the way to the Supreme Court". All the way to the Supreme Court is to actually have the cert approved.

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

It is alive and well right here in the U.S. Anecdotal stories to cases that only show that the defendant was an idiot does not make your case.

 

[Robert Prey]

NGC6205 wrote:

"A "Public Office Money Certificate" is a bogus financial instrument. If you actually believe in that kind of nonsense, then you are more delusional than I thought."

Comment: It's not a financial instrument at all, but merely a tangible means of showing a potential jury a good faith objection of the litigant to unconstitutional money.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

There is no wording in the Constitution that empowers the Federal Government to determine what legal tender is. If you think there is, cite it.

Opinion of Thomas Jefferson.

"The federal government — I deny their power to make paper money a legal tender."

 

[Robert Prey]

NGC wrote: It is alive and well right here in the U.S. Anecdotal stories to cases that only show that the defendant was an idiot does not make your case

If it's alive and well, then how can you say the defendant was an idiot? It is you who claim the law is alive and well but cannot find a single instance where it is upheld. A very strange cognitive dissonance.

 

[Drachasor]

There is no wording in the Constitution that empowers the Federal Government to determine what legal tender is. If you think there is, cite it.

Opinion of Thomas Jefferson.

"The federal government — I deny their power to make paper money a legal tender."

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

"Coin" can cover many things (including paper money of course) and nowhere in the Constitution does it state it must be directly tied to precious metals. Indeed, "regulate the Value thereof" is pretty clear indication they can decide on whatever method they want.

Jefferson wasn't right about everything -- heck, he had a habit of arguing alternatively on both sides of any given issue. Indeed, since they Federal Government was issuing paper money early on it is a pretty clear indication that the majority of people in government disagreed with him on this, at least assuming he was talking about constitutionality there.

You don't happen to have a source as to when and where and under what circumstances Jefferson said that quote? Given that Google only comes up with less than a dozen hits on even the second half of it, I am a bit curious as to its origin.

 

[ngc6205]

A "Public Office Money Certificate" is a bogus financial instrument. If you actually believe in that kind of nonsense, then you are more delusional than I thought.

Comment: It's not a financial instrument at all, but merely a tangible means of showing a potential jury a good faith objection of the litigant to unconstitutional money.

Let's take a look at exactly what you wrote in your anecdotal story...

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).

A promissory note is a financial instrument. Specifically, a promissory note is a two-party negotiable instrument in which one person makes an unconditional, written promise to pay another person (the payee), or a person specified by the payee, a fixed amount of money either on demand or at a particular time in the future.

A "Public Office Money Certificate" is not any form of promissory note. The village idiot in your story attempted to pass it off in order to pay for his village vehicle sticker. IOW, he attempted to use it like a financial instrument. What he did was commit FRAUD.

There are several conditions that a "promise to pay" must meet in order to be negotiable (IOW, in order to be cashed by the recipient). One of those conditions is that the note must be payable on demand or at a definite time. A promise to pay after some possible future event occurs is not a definite time. The public office money certificate is BOGUS.

 

[ngc6205]

NGC wrote: It is alive and well right here in the U.S. Anecdotal stories to cases that only show that the defendant was an idiot does not make your case

If it's alive and well, then how can you say the defendant was an idiot? It is you who claim the law is alive and well but cannot find a single instance where it is upheld. A very strange cognitive dissonance.

If the states do not violate the prohibition listed in that section, then there are not going to be any cases. The three anecdotal cases you mention (even if you did provide a valid citation), would not be violations of Article 1, Section 10. So, you have yet to show that the clause is NOT being upheld.

 

[Drachasor]

"Coin" can cover many things (including paper money of course)

I just wanted to add that the word "coin" meant "create" in a more generalized sense for a LONG time, before the 1500s even. Just in case someone wants to try claiming it had some highly specialized meaning back when the Constitution was written. It did not.

 

[Robert Prey]

"Coin" can cover many things (including paper money of course) and nowhere in the Constitution does it state it must be directly tied to precious metals. Indeed, "regulate the Value thereof" is pretty clear indication they can decide on whatever method they want..

It might be helpful to do some scholarly research on the meaning of words before you expound on your own unfounded fantasies. The eminent 19th century historian George Bancroft, a man who was a contemporary of many of Founding Fathers as a young man, has written extensively on the subject. Here are some excerpts from

A PLEA FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
Wounded in the House of Its Guardians
by George Bancroft

the word "money" in all colonial legislation was used exclusively for gold and silver coin.


In the interpretation of words a cardinal rule is, to conform to usage. In 1787 every English dictionary defined "money" as metallic coin;

The constitution of the United States authorizes their legislature to coin money; and of the meaning of the word in that clause, no doubt can exist.


Extract from a speech delivered by DANIEL WEBSTER in the Senate of the United States, on the 21st of December, 1836, on the subject of the Specie Circular.

"Most unquestionably there is no legal tender, and there can be no legal tender, in this country, under the authority of this government or any other, but gold and silver, either the coinage of our own mints, or foreign coins, at rates regulated by congress. This is a constitutional principle, perfectly plain, and of the very highest importance. The states are expressly prohibited from making anything but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts; and although no such express prohibition is applied to congress, yet as congress has no power granted to it, in this respect, but to coin money and to regulate the value of foreign coins, it clearly has no power to substitute paper, or anything else, for coin..."

 

[Robert Prey]

If the states do not violate the prohibition listed in that section, then there are not going to be any cases. The three anecdotal cases you mention (even if you did provide a valid citation), would not be violations of Article 1, Section 10. So, you have yet to show that the clause is NOT being upheld.

So, if the three cited cases are not violations of Art. I, Sec. 10, then just what would be a violation? A specific example, please.

 

[Robert Prey]

Let's take a look at exactly what you wrote in your anecdotal story...


A promissory note is a financial instrument. Specifically, a promissory note is a two-party negotiable instrument in which one person makes an unconditional, written promise to pay another person (the payee), or a person specified by the payee, a fixed amount of money either on demand or at a particular time in the future.

A "Public Office Money Certificate" is not any form of promissory note. The village idiot in your story attempted to pass it off in order to pay for his village vehicle sticker. IOW, he attempted to use it like a financial instrument. What he did was commit FRAUD.

There are several conditions that a "promise to pay" must meet in order to be negotiable (IOW, in order to be cashed by the recipient). One of those conditions is that the note must be payable on demand or at a definite time. A promise to pay after some possible future event occurs is not a definite time. The public office money certificate is BOGUS.

No, it was most definitely not a fraud. The instrument clearly stated on its face, that it was not a check, but promise to pay in lawful money pending on the court's interpretation of the words "lawful money".

 

[Robert Prey]

NGC6205 wrote:
"So you say. Anecdotal stories are not proof. Citation to actual case that can be confirmed is needed."

Comment: Would a citation make any difference? Do you doubt the veracity of what I have cited? Do you doubt that a Black Robed Oath Taker would deny a defendant his only defense before the jury -- the Constitution of the United States? Are you naive enough to think that this does not happen every single day in the courts across America?

 

[ngc6205]

It might be helpful to do some scholarly research on the meaning of words before you expound on your own unfounded fantasies. The eminent 19th century historian George Bancroft, a man who was a contemporary of many of Founding Fathers as a young man, has written extensively on the subject. Here are some excerpts from

A PLEA FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
Wounded in the House of Its Guardians
by George Bancroft

the word "money" in all colonial legislation was used exclusively for gold and silver coin.


In the interpretation of words a cardinal rule is, to conform to usage. In 1787 every English dictionary defined "money" as metallic coin;

The constitution of the United States authorizes their legislature to coin money; and of the meaning of the word in that clause, no doubt can exist.


Extract from a speech delivered by DANIEL WEBSTER in the Senate of the United States, on the 21st of December, 1836, on the subject of the Specie Circular.

"Most unquestionably there is no legal tender, and there can be no legal tender, in this country, under the authority of this government or any other, but gold and silver, either the coinage of our own mints, or foreign coins, at rates regulated by congress. This is a constitutional principle, perfectly plain, and of the very highest importance. The states are expressly prohibited from making anything but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts; and although no such express prohibition is applied to congress, yet as congress has no power granted to it, in this respect, but to coin money and to regulate the value of foreign coins, it clearly has no power to substitute paper, or anything else, for coin..."

First, Dr. Bancroft wrote that close to the end of his life. His recollections of his early life may have altered over time. Second, he was born in late 1800 and he spent 1817 to 1822 in Germany. He may not have had as much interaction with founding fathers as you may believe. Third, while he is undoubtedly a great historian and writer, what he wrote is simply his opinion about the Constitution. It isn't law. Fourth, earlier, I provided a quote from Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution which you derided as irrelevant. Justice Story was appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison in 1810.

 

[ngc6205]

So, if the three cited cases are not violations of Art. I, Sec. 10, then just what would be a violation? A specific example, please.

If a STATE passed a law violating any of the prohibitions listed in Article 1 Section 10. If the state of Florida attempted to enter into a treaty with Brazil, that would be a violation.

 

[ngc6205]

No, it was most definitely not a fraud. The instrument clearly stated on its face, that it was not a check, but promise to pay in lawful money pending on the court's interpretation of the words "lawful money".

If he presented it and received a village vehicle sticker in return, he presented a bogus instrument and received something of value. It is little different than passing a bad check. A good check or valid negotiable instrument can be cashed by the payee. A public office money certificate cannot be cashed by the payee since it is bogus and is not a negotiable instrument. You and the person in your anecdotal story may not think it was fraud, but it was fraud.

 

[ngc6205]

NGC6205 wrote:
"So you say. Anecdotal stories are not proof. Citation to actual case that can be confirmed is needed."

Comment: Would a citation make any difference?

Yes, a citation would make a difference. That way I could look up the case on Pacer or Westlaw and verify what you say happened.

Do you doubt the veracity of what I have cited?

Yes, I do. My favorite Aunt Sally grows prize winning tomatoes in her garden on the shores of the Sea of Tranquility. Do you doubt the veracity of that? Without a citation, an anecdotal story is nothing more than just unsubstantiated words.

Do you doubt that a Black Robed Oath Taker would deny a defendant his only defense before the jury -- the Constitution of the United States? Are you naive enough to think that this does not happen every single day in the courts across America?

Yes, I doubt the defendant had a firm grasp on the meaning of the Constitution. Much like tax protesters who don't understand the meaning of the word, "includes".

 

[eeyore1954]

That is the question I so want to put to the Tea Party people.

They act like all change is bad. Thus their constant refrains to go back to the original document.

The one without voter protection?

The one that allowed gross gender discrimination?

The one that allowed slavery?

That one?

WHY?

I finally found a statement about the tea party here that I can pretty much agree with.
The don't want all poor babies to starve or get sick, they don't want all gays to go back to Africa, but they do do act as if the Constitution is some infallible document written by godlike individuals. In general it has served well and stood the test of time and changed through amendments.

 

[Drachasor]

It might be helpful to do some scholarly research on the meaning of words before you expound on your own unfounded fantasies. The eminent 19th century historian George Bancroft, a man who was a contemporary of many of Founding Fathers as a young man, has written extensively on the subject. Here are some excerpts from

I did do research on the word "coin." I posted a link. You ignored it. Do whatever you want, but the word "coin" has had a very broad meaning for at least twice as long as the USA has existed.

Further, "money" was used for paper money certainly by the Massachusetts Bay colony almost a hundred years before the Revolutionary war -- this money didn't even have a gold or silver exchange.

Given that the United States immediately set up a bank that issued paper currency, I find it a bit ridiculous to propose that this wasn't allowed by the Constitution. I believe you are depending on how hard it is to look up how words were used 200+ years go. It is indeed tricky to do this. I'd note that you can find people today who try to stick to highly specific meanings of certain words, despite the word having a broader meaning. You have merely done this regarding the terms "coin" and "money" with someone 200 years ago.

 

[Robert Prey]

I finally found a statement about the tea party here that I can pretty much agree with.
The don't want all poor babies to starve or get sick, they don't want all gays to go back to Africa, but they do do act as if the Constitution is some infallible document written by godlike individuals. In general it has served well and stood the test of time and changed through amendments.

Unlike the great unwashed, the Tea Party has heard of something called the Amendments. I think that's the Constitution most are referring to. You might try reading them.

 

[Robert Prey]

If a STATE passed a law violating any of the prohibitions listed in Article 1 Section 10. If the state of Florida attempted to enter into a treaty with Brazil, that would be a violation.

Oh, then say for example a state passed a law making something other than gold and silver coin a tender, that would be a violation?