(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

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

A nation is not a mathematical structure and the constitution is not a set of axioms that somehow logically determine everything that that should be. Considering the ass-backwards nature of some of the things in the original constitution I'm not excited, nor do I have any faith that walking lock step to the commandments of this version will result in a utopia-- Or even be moral or consistent.

The laws that exist are only those the enforced.

That has never changed once in the course of human history.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

Selective enforcement which isn't based on some other precedent or rule of interpretation is arbitrary, and calling a law arbitrary is a contradiction in terms. There are some laws in the U.S. constitution which are axioms, like the ninth amendment. The ninth amendment is derived from Thomas Jefferson's statement about holding certain truths to be self-evident. What's self-evident is all men are created with certain natural rights, and the ninth amendment is a source of natural rights. They're rights which existed before the constitution and continue to exist after the ratification of the constitution.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

How do you think the States may purchase said federal reserve tender to meet the Constitutional needs?

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

They call a constitutional convention and make the federal government obey the law.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Let me rephrase - if you believe they're using federal notes to deal with debts, what do you think they're using to buy said tender?

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

I really have no idea what it means to say "They're rights which existed before the constitution and continue to exist after the ratification of the constitution." These rights are only one of many possibilities for what kind of rights a person might have in a given society. It's not like it's some kind of a priori universal knowledge. The fact that the founding fathers thought it was is part of their arrogance.

In fact, consider "Thomas Jefferson's statement about holding certain truths to be self-evident. What's self-evident is all men are created with certain natural rights, and the ninth amendment is a source of natural rights."

It was "self-evident" that white men with the right social background had these rights, it was not self-evident to the founding fathers that other people might also have those rights. At this time we like to think that we have conquered all of these biases-- yet, consider how the view of gay people has changed in the last 10 years. There isn't an end to this process. There shouldn't be one.

We can't say we know exactly what the rights a of humans should be. It is a matter of expereince and adpattion.

The laws are always being revised-- often they have a hard time keeping up.

[readherring.livejournal.com]

Ad Fontes!! (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec10.html)

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

A legal tender, or forced tender, is a means of paying debt which cannot be refused. Not only is it a means of paying debt which cannot be refused, but the U.S. government raids and arrests people who compete with them. Surely you've heard of the liberty dollar gold and silver coins, and how it was determined to they're not legal tender (http://www.usmint.gov/pressroom/index.cfm?flash=yes&action=press_release&id=710), even though constitutionally they are legal tender.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

To bring this back to your topic-- To me an argument that something "violates the constitution" is far weaker than showing how an action hurts people, or the nation directly.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

it was not self-evident to the founding fathers that other people might also have those rights

It was, actually, to James Madison but he was one of few men showing the hypocrisy of the dissenters.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

How does disobeying the law not hurt the nation directly?

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

Multiple people, multiple vies of what rights are and who can have them. It's nothing new.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

It depends on the law in questions and what happens as a result of the actions taken. I urge you to talk about specifics.

"All fifty states make federal reserve notes a tender in payment of debts."

And how is this a problem?

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

Strictly speaking, the federal government only has power to coin money and states are restricted from coining money. Emitting bills of credit is what the founders meant by issuing paper currency, as can be seen from the federalist papers (like #44). A paper currency being considered money is strictly unconstitutional. The restriction on states to only use gold and silver coin is legalese for "no thing shall be money except gold and silver coin".

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

Why do you think the founder's thought this was important?

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

The power of the government to increase the money supply at will hurts the people via what some call a "hidden tax". When the money supply is inflated, people demand more money for goods and services. It can spiral out of control like in the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe, or it can be controlled and significantly hurt the lower class and noticeably hurt the middle class.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

The U.S. constitution doesn't demand a gold or silver standard, but its monetary system was originally implemented as a bimetallic system where gold and silver were interchangeable.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

Because the Continental was one of the first if not the first paper currency to circulate before the constitution was ratified, and it eventually became worthless and Gresham's Law took effect.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

The power of the government to increase the money supply at will is not always a bad thing-- though, it can be abused.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

It's a little like quartering of solders-- it was in response to recent events-- it may have some deeper significance-- though I don't take the founding fathers to be omniscient.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

I don't consider them omniscient. I consider them wise.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

Historical ideas are always worthy of consideration. But some ideas are outdated.

[sgiffy.livejournal.com]

States don't make things legal tender the federal government does and the federal government has the constitutional power to allow for paper money.

In other words you're reading it wrong.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

Oh.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

No state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts

No, I'm not reading it wrong.