(no subject)

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

1) If any state makes any thing a tender in payment of debts which isn't gold and silver coin, then that state has broken the supreme law of the land vis-a-vis Article one Section ten.
2) All fifty states make federal reserve notes a tender in payment of debts.
Therefore:
3) All fifty states have broken the supreme law of the land.

Some of you want to say the U.S. constitution is irrelevant, or the interpretation of the U.S. constitution is somehow fallacious. I'd like to point you to Cornell Law School's site. Notice how there's a hyperlink in section nine for the direct taxes clause, and the link takes you to the sixteenth amendment. The U.S. went through the amendment process to invalidate an original law of the constitution, but the Federal Reserve Act merely went through Congress and then to the President's desk. The exact same thing happens with the war on drugs. We amend the constitution to prohibit alcohol, but we don't amend the constitution to prohibit a less harmful drug like marijuana.

Where's the irrefutable logic which shows how the U.S. doesn't have to amend the constitution?

Comments

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

I would've thought by now you'd realize I won't accept your proposal. Clearly the dissenting justice's opinion, which you reject without providing any reason why it's wrong despite evidence to the contrary from the federalist papers, is insufficient.

[jennem.livejournal.com]

The Federalist Papers didn't discuss a limitation on federal power in the section you previously cited. It discussed a limitation on State power, which I pointed out to you at the time you cited it.

I have provided reasons for why the dissenting justice's opinion is wrong. Every single response I have made in this post has been an exercise in demonstrating why Field's opinion is wrong. Hell, the majority opinion re-iterated a majority of the arguments I made throughout this post. I'm not going to re-write all of my responses just because you made a drive-by citation of a dissenting judge's opinion in a case that went 8-1.

I'm just trying to nail down your position. You're not advocating for a gold or silver standard, but you think that Congress can't value coined money outside of its intrinsic value. Is that your position?

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

Consider the 10th amendment for your context of the limited role of the federal government. No state can consider anything but gold or silver coin money. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. Only Congress can coin money. The only power Congress has is to coin money and regulate the value thereof, meaning to set the weight of each coin, which they legally did with the Coinage Act of 1792. The states proceeded to use those coins as a tender in payment of debts. The restriction on the states to only use gold and silver coin as a tender in payment of debts is a logically conclusive restriction on the Congress to produce only what the states can consider money.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

You never did respond to this, and that's OK, but I just sat here and read more of the same dissenting justice's opinion, and he has the same concern of consistency and logical necessity which obviously isn't of any concern to the majority of people.

The clause to coin money must be read in connection with the prohibition upon the states to make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. The two taken to- [110 U.S. 421, 464] gether clearly show that the coins to be fabricated under the authority of the general government, and as such to be a legal tender for debts, are to be composed principally, if not entirely, of the metals of gold and silver. Coins of such metals are necessarily a legal tender to the amount of their respective values, without any legislative enactment, and the statute of the United States providing that they shall be such tender is only declaratory of their effect when offered in payment.

When the constitution says, therefore, that congress shall have the power to coin money, interpreting that clause with the prohibition upon the states, it says it shall have the power to make coins of the precious metals a legal tender, for that alone which is money can be a legal tender. If this be the true import of the language, nothing else can be made a legal tender.