(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]

Again, "no state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts" does not have anything to do with passing legal tender laws. Even if that law meant states can pass legal tender laws as long as gold and silver coin are the legal tender, the Congress does not have explicit power to declare what's legal tender. It has power to coin money and borrow money / emit bills of credit, neither of which conclusively lead to the power of Congress to declare paper money legal tender. When the 10th amendment says the power not given to the federal government and not denied to the states goes to the states and the people, it means it.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Again, "no state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts" does not have anything to do with passing legal tender laws. Even if that law meant states can pass legal tender laws as long as gold and silver coin are the legal tender

That's exactly what that means.

Congress does not have explicit power to declare what's legal tender

Yes, it does.

The Congress shall have power to ... pay the debts and ... To borrow money on the credit of the United States; ... To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, ...

neither of which conclusively lead to the power of Congress to declare paper money legal tender

Just because you don't understand how it does, doesn't mean that it doesn't. It's been explained to you several ways above.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

None of those explanations are logical, hence my use of conclusively. Like it or not, natural language is logical. Until someone shows which steps are from "coin money" to "declare anything legal tender", which doesn't include the necessary and proper clause, because declaring paper money legal tender is NOT necessary and proper for carrying out the power to coin money, OR emit bills of credit, which are IOUs for specie borrowed on the good faith of future tax revenue, y'all are being illogical. Get off the slippery slope.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

None of those explanations are logical, hence my use of conclusively.

Actually, they are, you just either don't understand them, or you're choosing to not understand them. Here's a free clue for you: Logic does not guarantee a single path. Two opposing arguments can both be completely logical.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

Your assertion is baseless.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Hardly, there's a ton of comments above that it's based on.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

All of which are baseless. Not one single person -- not even the affirming opinions of the SCOTUS -- provided any legitimate evidence to support their argument. Justice Field was the only one who seems to have had any concern for the rigors of logic and its importance in law.