PDA

View Full Version : Help on Constitutional question...




socialize_me
11-19-2008, 07:00 PM
The Constitution says only Congress may coin money and that states may not declare anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts, but I had a question concerning private mints. That youtube video from goldsilver.com had Ron Paul say that if you were to pay someone with an ounce of silver, you'd be thrown in jail which is true, but why is this a bad thing? Doesn't the Constitution explicitly say only Congress may coin money?? So when you take it upon yourself to coin an ounce of silver (not trying to counterfeit of course), isn't that literally doing so to coin money which is explicitly a power secured to the Federal Government under Article I???

Sorry if how I tried to explain my question to be confusing. I just don't understand how a lot of people are okay with private mints coining things like the Liberty Dollar, using it for transactions, and getting in trouble for it. Isn't it illegal and unconstitutional to do so in the first place?? I do realize creating Federal Reserve Notes is unconstitutional in itself, but I guess I don't understand where it's okay for private individuals to make their own gold/silver coin, transact with it, etc. etc.

Clarification on this would be appreciated :D

powerofreason
11-19-2008, 08:03 PM
That youtube video from goldsilver.com had Ron Paul say that if you were to pay someone with an ounce of silver, you'd be thrown in jail which is true, but why is this a bad thing?

Because you haven't harmed anyone? Duh? :rolleyes:

socialize_me
11-19-2008, 08:20 PM
Because you haven't harmed anyone? Duh? :rolleyes:

God...enough with the victimless crime crap. If I wanted to talk about the War on Drugs, I would have made a thread on it. This is a Constitutional question and from what I gather, it's unconstitutional and thus illegal for private mints to coin gold and silver to transact purchases. Only the Federal Government can and should be able to do that as granted under the Constitution.

powerofreason
11-19-2008, 08:49 PM
God...enough with the victimless crime crap. If I wanted to talk about the War on Drugs, I would have made a thread on it. This is a Constitutional question and from what I gather, it's unconstitutional and thus illegal for private mints to coin gold and silver to transact purchases. Only the Federal Government can and should be able to do that as granted under the Constitution.

Victimless crime crap? You support carrying out violence against people who haven't harmed anyone? Thats really, really, sad. Maybe you ought to rethink that. And there's plenty more victimless crimes than drug "crimes" thats for sure. Ever hear of prostitution? Or gambling? Or assisted suicide? Or speeding tickets? Or city code violations? Etc, etc, etc.



Only the Federal Government can and should be able to do that as granted under the Constitution.

Hmm. Not in my opinion.

No Treason VI
The Constitution of No Authority (http://www.anarchism.net/notreasonVI.htm) - Lysander Spooner

haaaylee
11-19-2008, 09:19 PM
i haven't watched that video yet but if you pay with silver/gold it is different than minting it.


and then there is:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article294.html

?

socialize_me
11-19-2008, 10:23 PM
Victimless crime crap? You support carrying out violence against people who haven't harmed anyone? Thats really, really, sad. Maybe you ought to rethink that. And there's plenty more victimless crimes than drug "crimes" thats for sure. Ever hear of prostitution? Or gambling? Or assisted suicide? Or speeding tickets? Or city code violations? Etc, etc, etc.



Hmm. Not in my opinion.

No Treason VI
The Constitution of No Authority (http://www.anarchism.net/notreasonVI.htm) - Lysander Spooner

Your opinion has proven irrelevant to this discussion. You're trying to argue nonviolent crimes for a Constitutional question where guidance is expressly stated. What you think, what you perceive, what you want is null, void, and un-fucking-practical.

Again, back to my original question, private mints creating COINS to use in transactions (Which is money) is only delegated to the Federal Government. It is then up to the states to declare what the federal government coins to be legal tender only if it is either gold or silver. Thus, if a private citizen coins his own set of money and tries to use it in transactions, that is tender. Only Congress can coin money. The private citizen just violated the Constitution and could very well be considered counterfeit. My question is this: How isn't this unconstitutional. Put your personal observations about anarcho-capitalist theories in a jar where it belongs and hide it under your bed. This is a Constitutional question not a personal philosophical one. That is why we have a Constitution so we don't get opinionated radical fucks like yourself dictating laws on the whim of your utopian vision.

America will never be what you envision. I'm at least trying to get back to as much Constitution as I can--you're apparently willing to take personal morality over Constitutional morality. That's nothing less than a democracy. Go back with the sheep to play.

pacelli
11-19-2008, 11:10 PM
Again, back to my original question, private mints creating COINS to use in transactions (Which is money) is only delegated to the Federal Government. It is then up to the states to declare what the federal government coins to be legal tender only if it is either gold or silver. Thus, if a private citizen coins his own set of money and tries to use it in transactions, that is tender. Only Congress can coin money. The private citizen just violated the Constitution and could very well be considered counterfeit. My question is this: How isn't this unconstitutional.

Where is the definition of "private citizen" in the constitution?

DeadheadForPaul
11-19-2008, 11:14 PM
This is where the Constitutionalists and the Libertarians/Anarcho-Capitalists split - it happens on several other issues too. The Constitution is pretty clear on this issue. We should be pushing for reform of the federal government's monetary system rather than bothering with petty personal mints and such since the Constitution explicitly states that this is an issue for the federal government. A state government, however, could allow for gold and silver.

Knightskye
11-20-2008, 01:32 AM
Well, if you trade someone silver for food, or electronics, that's the barter system, right?

powerofreason
11-20-2008, 01:31 PM
Your opinion has proven irrelevant to this discussion. You're trying to argue nonviolent crimes for a Constitutional question where guidance is expressly stated. What you think, what you perceive, what you want is null, void, and un-fucking-practical.

Again, back to my original question, private mints creating COINS to use in transactions (Which is money) is only delegated to the Federal Government. It is then up to the states to declare what the federal government coins to be legal tender only if it is either gold or silver. Thus, if a private citizen coins his own set of money and tries to use it in transactions, that is tender. Only Congress can coin money. The private citizen just violated the Constitution and could very well be considered counterfeit. My question is this: How isn't this unconstitutional. Put your personal observations about anarcho-capitalist theories in a jar where it belongs and hide it under your bed. This is a Constitutional question not a personal philosophical one. That is why we have a Constitution so we don't get opinionated radical fucks like yourself dictating laws on the whim of your utopian vision.

America will never be what you envision. I'm at least trying to get back to as much Constitution as I can--you're apparently willing to take personal morality over Constitutional morality. That's nothing less than a democracy. Go back with the sheep to play.

Freedom is not radical. Nor is it impractical. Nor is it democracy. Why worry about whether the Constitution says its ok or not (unless you're planning on doing this yourself, and need to know if men in costumes will be coming to kidnap you)? The Constitution was written by a bunch of elitists a couple hundred years ago because the Articles of Confederation did not give them ways to get ahead in business and control other people. Why people glorify it and hold it up like some kind of brilliant guide to how things ought to be is beyond me. If you want to argue technicalities about what the Constitution says about such and such go ahead, but those are the REAL irrelevant questions. And I do believe there will be anarcho-capitalism again in America at some point (last time was the "wild" west, similar to it anyways). There's an effort, at least.
(http://freekeene.com)

Elwar
11-20-2008, 01:38 PM
The Constitution says only Congress may coin money and that states may not declare anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts,

The Congress shall have Power To ... coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.


It then goes on to restrict the governments of the states.


Nowhere does it restrict individual citizens. There is not much in the Constitution that restricts individuals, it tends to restrict the government.

The Constitution gives the government the power to have an army and restricts the states from doing so, but as citizens we can legally raise an army to defend our borders.

polomertz
11-20-2008, 01:54 PM
The Congress shall have Power To ... coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.


It then goes on to restrict the governments of the states.


Nowhere does it restrict individual citizens. There is not much in the Constitution that restricts individuals, it tends to restrict the government.

The Constitution gives the government the power to have an army and restricts the states from doing so, but as citizens we can legally raise an army to defend our borders.


+1

Yes, I as an individual am free to use fiat currency until my eyes explode. However, I think I would choose to use something else. Currently, legal tender laws REQUIRE me to use fiat money for most of my transactions. We all know THAT is unconstitutional and just silly.

WRellim
11-20-2008, 03:15 PM
Much easier to answer if you just read the Constitution itself instead of wandering around "wondering"...


US Constitution
Article 1,
Section 8 (Enumerated Powers Clause)
The Congress shall have power [...] To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

Section 10, Clause 1 (Contracts Clause):
No State shall [...] coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts [...]
Section 8 grants Congress the power (ability) to coin money, but it does not require them to do so, nor does it preclude other entities from doing so.

Section 10 DOES preclude the individual STATES from coining money or emitting "Bills of Credit" (aka "paper money for circulation", though one could argue that "bonds" are a violation of this since they don't really circulate they are shy of the definition encompasses by the phrase) -- and specifically excludes the STATES from declaring any "legal tender" laws (one presumes they actually either believed that the Federal Government would never be so stupid as to do that again -- they were still smarting from the devaluation of the "Continentals" -- OR they wanted to leave that option "open" in case of emergencies, like another war).

But as previously cited, nothing in either of those could be construed to preclude PRIVATE individuals or firms from either coining money or from creating "Bills of Credit" -- although Congress WOULD have the ability to set the "value" of that privately coined money in terms of taxes being collected etc.

What is nearly always missed by people is that the Section 8 clause containing the "coinage and money valuation" is written in the SAME sentence and directly combined with the establishment of "standard of weights and measures" -- and they did that, because they saw money "valuation" and "coining" to be the SAME kind of thing -- a matter of "standardization" or definition of the monetary terminology; and they certainly were NOT trying to allow Congress to "play around" with the valuation of money/coins any more than they wanted Congress to arbitrarily "play around" with the "value" of a foot, or a gallon or pound; the clause was there to allow increasing refinement in accuracy and to allow better standardization across the colonies (that way Virginia couldn't suddenly declare a mile to be something different than Massachussets, etc.)