N.J. to Issue Paper Money Featuring Bruce Springsteen [Satire]

[bobbyw24]

“The Obama administration has so devalued American currency, by its failed economic and fiscal policies, that this is the best a state can do,” noted Carroll.
http://persimusic.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/bruce_springsteen_and_the_e_street_band_the_wild_t he_innocent_and_the_e_street_shuffle_front1.jpg

Under Article I Section 8 of the Federal Constitution, Congress has the authority to:

“To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.”

One would think that this alone would deter Assemblyman Carroll–– however he claims that “Article I Section 8 merely refers to ‘coin money’, and not paper currency.”

“In an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, as the Founding Fathers would have us interpret the document, there is no mention of ‘paper money’ – just ‘coin money’ ”, noted Carroll.

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/style/nj-paper-money-to-feature-springsteen-sinatra-and-piscopo

[GunnyFreedom]

Wow, and they all said I was crazy for my Constitutional Tender act... :rolleyes:

http://ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H448

[bobbyw24]

by Ellen Brown
posted May 13, 2010

By 2011, only one state will have escaped the credit crunch that is pushing other states toward insolvency: North Dakota. North Dakota is also the only state that owns its own bank. The state has its own credit machine, making it independent of the Wall Street banking crisis that has infected the rest of the country.


Now, several states are either studying the prospects of a state-owned bank or are considering legislation to make one possible.

Five states have bills pending—Massachusetts, Washington, Illinois, Michigan, and Virginia. In April, documentary filmmaker and Virginia resident Bill Still showed his new award-winning documentary on the topic, The Secret of Oz, to the Missouri House of Representatives. Rep. Allen Icet, a candidate for state auditor, proposed using the Virginia proposal as part of a study on a state bank in Missouri and said he would hold committee hearings this summer.

Also in mid-April, the Hawai‘i House approved a resolution asking the state to study the possibility of establishing a state-run bank there. State Rep. Marcus Oshiro, a Democrat who chairs the finance committee, called a state-run bank a “reasonable public option” to spur development and hold state funds.

Other state legislatures entertaining proposals for forming state-owned banks include New Mexico and Vermont. Candidates in eight states are running on a state-owned bank platform: three Democrats, two Greens, two Republicans, and one Independent.

—Ellen Brown is an attorney and the author of 11 books, including Web of Debt,

www.WebOfDebt.com

[angelatc]

Look for us to invade North Dakota soon. THey have oil, too, you know.

[Krugerrand]

Look for us to invade North Dakota soon. THey have oil, too, you know.

Herman says that have nuclear weapon ambitions, too.

[eduardo89]

Look for us to invade North Dakota soon. THey have oil, too, you know.

I can see you guys annexing Alberta first.

[Seraphim]

50 State sized counterfitting operations is better than one national one. Especially a national one that can send other countries into inflationary oblivion.

[Krugerrand]

Who in their right mind would put money in a state bank run by Massachusetts or Illinois?

[eduardo89]

Who in their right mind would put money in a state bank run by Massachusetts or Illinois?

They're probably safer investments than Michigan.

[Travlyr]

50 State sized counterfitting operations is better than one national one. Especially a national one that can send other countries into inflationary oblivion.
That's true. And 300 million counterfeiters are better than 50.

[Chester Copperpot]

50 State sized counterfitting operations is better than one national one. Especially a national one that can send other countries into inflationary oblivion.

I have to agree... While this legislator seems to have missed the constitution prohibiting the emitting of bills of credit by the state... i kinda would like to see this (I live in NJ) as the federal govt has completely bludgeoned the restrictions of the constitution so fuck it.. lets see some states to their own interpretations and see how the federal govt likes it..

[bobbyw24]

Last week, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (FRBB) released a report titled “The Bank of North Dakota: A Model for Massachusetts and Other States?” The report confirms that the Bank of North Dakota (BND) is a prudent, well-managed financial institution that serves in partnership with community banks as an effective economic backstop to credit contractions. The report also shows how the BND has evolved over the years to use its asset base to increasingly inject liquidity into its economy while maintaining conservative lending practices.

The report suggests, however, that forming a state-owned bank is probably not worth the effort in Massachusetts. We respectfully disagree. Below is the response of the Public Banking Institute to the report’s bulleted conclusions:

BND’s most important role in 2011 is serving as a lending partner for North Dakota’s numerous small banks.

While conceding that the BND provides significant financial advantages (improved capitalization ratios and increased profitability) to community banks, the FRBB report suggests that this function is less important for other states, including Massachusetts, since they have “bankers’ banks” serving in that capacity, and they have many large banking institutions in their larger cities that can take on complex lending projects.

While it may be true that large Wall Street-based banks are available to take on complex local lending projects, the fact is that they are not doing this adequately. They are reported to be more interested in using today’s extremely low Fed Funds rate to speculate, invest abroad, or invest in risk-free government bonds, profiting from the spread. Moreover, they are leveraging the states’ revenues and assets for these investments. State-owned banks could recapture this spread for their own local needs.

Out-of-state money center banks are now dominating the banking business in our major cities, squeezing out local banks that would be interested in undertaking complex local projects if they had the capital and other resources to do it. A state-owned bank can provide those resources, just as the BND does for local banks in North Dakota.

As for the private bankers’ banks in the state, we quote from an earlier response by the Center for State Innovation:

http://webofdebt.wordpress.com/responses/%e2%80%9cthe-bank-of-north-dakota-a-model-for-massachusetts-and-other-states%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%94-response-to-the-may-2011-report-by-the-federal-reserve-bank-of-boston/

[Travlyr]

Who in their right mind would put money in a state bank run by Massachusetts or Illinois?
No one. Right mind and putting money in the State Bank of Illinois is an oxymoron.

[Seraphim]

It won't slow down the depressionary forces, but it will slow down the oppressive Washington forces.

The outcome to all this is VERY BAD in the short run, ANYWAY you cut it.

At least this slows down the full out authoritarianism.


I have to agree... While this legislator seems to have missed the constitution prohibiting the emitting of bills of credit by the state... i kinda would like to see this (I live in NJ) as the federal govt has completely bludgeoned the restrictions of the constitution so fuck it.. lets see some states to their own interpretations and see how the federal govt likes it..

[The Gold Standard]

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

State issued fiat paper money is blatantly unconstitutional. Will never see the light of day.

[eduardo89]

State issued fiat paper money is blatantly unconstitutional. Will never see the light of day.

I thought all money that's not gold or silver is unconstitutional. Last time I checked the change in my pocket isn't gold or silver.

[Seraphim]

So is the Federal Reserve and it has seen the light of day for 98 years.


State issued fiat paper money is blatantly unconstitutional. Will never see the light of day.

[matt0611]

I thought all money that's not gold or silver is unconstitutional. Last time I checked the change in my pocket isn't gold or silver.

Yup, thats true. The congress only has the power to coin money. Not print bills of credit or mint tokens.

And the states are prohibited from doing this explicitly:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit;"

As these notes are bills of credit for nothing (similar to our federal reserve notes). Printing this money is a blatantly unconstitutional act.

[Krugerrand]

I thought all money that's not gold or silver is unconstitutional. Last time I checked the change in my pocket isn't gold or silver.

I'm pretty sure copper pennies have been around since ratification. (at least until 1983 zinc pennies.)

[Krugerrand]

Yup, thats true. The congress only has the power to coin money. Not print bills of credit or mint tokens.

And the states are prohibited from doing this explicitly:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit;"

As these notes are bills of credit for nothing (similar to our federal reserve notes). Printing this money is a blatantly unconstitutional act.

Could one not call them Deposit Receipt Bills?

[eduardo89]

I'm pretty sure copper pennies have been around since ratification. (at least until 1983 zinc pennies.)

True. But they were 100% copper only until 1857. They've been only 2.5% copper since 1982 and they'll probably move to zinc-copper plated steel like in Canada soon.

[Krugerrand]

True. But they were 100% copper only until 1857. They've been only 2.5% copper since 1982 and they'll probably move to zinc-copper plated steel like in Canada soon.

But, why were the 100% copper coins not unconstitutional?

[eduardo89]

But, why were the 100% copper coins not unconstitutional?

There's got to be something in the Coinage Act of 1792 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1792) explaining it. Probably there was a link between the silver dollar (the US was on a silver standard) and copper pennies and half pennies.

Maybe there's a justification in An Act to Provide For a Copper Coinage too?

[eduardo89]

But, why were the 100% copper coins not unconstitutional?

Just thought of this. I think they would be constitutional as long as you can trade 100 copper pennies for 1 silver dollar. I guess they would just be a "placeholder" for a silver penny, since that would be impractical considering how little silver would be in one.

It's sort of the same concept as a silver certificate.

[Krugerrand]

There's got to be something in the Coinage Act of 1792 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1792) explaining it. Probably there was a link between the silver dollar (the US was on a silver standard) and copper pennies and half pennies.

Maybe there's a justification in An Act to Provide For a Copper Coinage too?

You are correct:
http://www.runtogold.com/2008/01/1792-coinage-act/

However, the copper weight of the $0.01 was reduced in 1793 and again in 1796 and apparently held until, as you noted 1857.
From the 1887 Treasury Report: (available as a 96MB free PDF download)
http://books.google.com/books?id=iD9HAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=Act+to+Provide+For+a+Copper+Coinage&source=bl&ots=3Udp6DFQzo&sig=eKVOLFkBuNrH7stztnFljypgzJs&hl=en&ei=T0-xTqOAKsOItwf82OGbAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Act%20to%20Provide%20For%20a%20Copper%20Coinage&f=false

[Krugerrand]

Just thought of this. I think they would be constitutional as long as you can trade 100 copper pennies for 1 silver dollar. I guess they would just be a "placeholder" for a silver penny, since that would be impractical considering how little silver would be in one.

It's sort of the same concept as a silver certificate.

This appears to be correct. I'm downloading the PDF quoted in post #25. I'll have to read it more thoroughly later. But it did mention something about the penny's not being deemed real money for debt payment.

[fisharmor]

But, why were the 100% copper coins not unconstitutional?
Because if the US Constitution didn't even last three years before being subverted, that would indicate a fundamental problem with the idea to begin with, and we all know that's not the case, so it was constitutional.
;)

[Bern]

(Satire)

Did anyone actually click the link in the OP?

[eduardo89]

Did anyone actually click the link in the OP?

I think 99% of the time we just read the title, talk for 5 pages and then realize the link is about something completely different.

[Krugerrand]

I think 99% of the time we just read the title, talk for 5 pages and then realize the link is about something completely different.

I was enjoying the discussion on the Constitutionality of the penny.

[eduardo89]

I was enjoying the discussion on the Constitutionality of the penny.

Yeah it's interesting, especially considering it was introduced so early in the nation's history right after they declared in the Constitution that only gold and silver are legal tender.

Then again, until 1857 the Spanish dollar was legal tender in the US alongside the US silver dollar and I guess as long as the copper penny and half pennies could be exchanged for a silver dollar it's constitutional. The same way that gold coins were legal tender because there was a set exchange rate with silver dollars.

I've always been very interested in the history of US coinage, which is undoubtedly the most beautiful coinage ever.

[D.A.S.]

Carroll is the main sponsor for legislation, A-1776, that would “…immediately initiate, create, fashion and grant authority to the state of New Jersey to print monetary paper currency to be valid for all debts public and private for the state there in.” The bill is cosponsored in the State Assembly by fellow legislators Allison Littell McHose (NJ-24), Erik Peterson (NJ-23), and John DiMaio (NJ-23). The same legislation is sponsored in the Senate by Senator Michael Doherty as S-117.

By the way, Michael Doherty endorsed Ron Paul back in September.

Also, how is this bill different from the Fed printing their money? Why not simply make the gold/silver tender a legally acceptable tender in the state of NJ instead of doing this fiat-printing nonsense?

[eduardo89]

By the way, Michael Doherty endorsed Ron Paul back in September.

Also, how is this bill different from the Fed printing their money? Why not simply make the gold/silver tender a legally acceptable tender in the state of NJ instead of doing this fiat-printing nonsense?

Because this currency could potentially be backed by the assets of the State of New Jersey.

[Bern]

I think 99% of the time we just read the title, talk for 5 pages and then realize the link is about something completely different.

That's fine and all but some peeps mine the forums for articles and videos to share in other circles. Would hate for someone to look stupid by misrepresenting this as a serious issue.

[bobbyw24]

Did anyone actually click the link in the OP?

Nice to see a good discussion in the Econ/Sound Money sub-forum

[specsaregood]

//edit: nevermind, i hate effing fake news/satire b.s.

isn't our real news fake enough already? do we really need more fake news?

[Krugerrand]

That's fine and all but some peeps mine the forums for articles and videos to share in other circles. Would hate for someone to look stupid by misrepresenting this as a serious issue.

Good point ... perhaps somebody could kindly update the title to add (satire).

[bobbyw24]

Good point ... perhaps somebody could kindly update the title to add (satire).

Are Ron Paul supporters really that gullible?

[The Gold Standard]

The federal government does have the authority to coin money, so it is at least debatable whether or not they can print money. States are expressly forbidden to emit bills of credit, so there is no room for interpretation here. Hell, maybe they do it anyway because no one gives a shit what the Constitution says anymore anyway, but that doesn't make it legal.

[bobbyw24]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?327549-The-word-gullible-isn-t-in-the-dictionary.-Don-t-believe-me-Look-it-up!

[specsaregood]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?327549-The-word-gullible-isn-t-in-the-dictionary.-Don-t-believe-me-Look-it-up!

I do believe the word douchebag is in there though; better go and check to make sure.

[bobbyw24]

I do believe the word douchebag is in there though; better go and check to make sure.

Relax--it was a joke.

Allow me to remind you: No Personal Attacks

Thank you

[Bern]

* sigh *

[specsaregood]

Relax--it was a joke.
Allow me to remind you: No Personal Attacks
Thank you

Good thing I never got personal or attacked. it was a joke, relax.

[Krugerrand]

Yeah it's interesting, especially considering it was introduced so early in the nation's history right after they declared in the Constitution that only gold and silver are legal tender.

Then again, until 1857 the Spanish dollar was legal tender in the US alongside the US silver dollar and I guess as long as the copper penny and half pennies could be exchanged for a silver dollar it's constitutional. The same way that gold coins were legal tender because there was a set exchange rate with silver dollars.

I've always been very interested in the history of US coinage, which is undoubtedly the most beautiful coinage ever.

Okay, I found the excerpt in the 1000+ page congressional record from the 1800's that had the good info. It was on page 257. Then, I OCRd it with Acrobat. Here's what it gave me:

The token coins of the United States prior to 1857 consisted of the
l·cent and half-cent copper pieces originally authorized by the act
establishing a mint and regulating the coins of the United States, approved
April 2, 1792.
The weight of these coins was fixed uy the act at II pennyweights,
or 264 grains for the I·cent piece, and 5l pennyweights, or 132 grains
for the half-cent.
The weight was reduced, by an act approved J annary 14, 1793, to 208
grains for the l·cent piece, and to 104 grains for the half·cent.
The weight was again reduced by proclamation of the President of
the United States, dated January 26,1796, under authority conferred
upon him by the eighth section of an act approved March 3, 1795, to
168 grains for the l·cent piece, and to 84 grains for the half·cent piece
at which rates these pieces were coined until their coinage was discontinued
by the act of February 21, 1857.
The acts authorizing the coinage of tho copper cents and half·cent.
did not specify that they should be a legal tender for any given amount.
An act to provide for a copper coinage, approved May 8,1792, authorieed
the Director of the Mint, with the approbation of the President
of the United States, to contract for the purchase of a quautity of
cOPller not to exceed 150 tons, and to cause the copper to be coined at
the mint into cents and half·cenls.

some pages of interest:
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/71308857?access_key=key-ylhmzgviy6we82we301
or
http://www.scribd.com/doc/71308857/Pages-From-Congressional-edition

[bobbyw24]

Good thing I never got personal or attacked. it was a joke, relax.

Thanks for the bump, Bro

[eduardo89]

Okay, I found the excerpt in the 1000+ page congressional record from the 1800's that had the good info. It was on page 257. Then, I OCRd it with Acrobat. Here's what it gave me:

The Mint Act of May 8, 1792 (Copper Coinage) also says this:


no copper coins or pieces whatsoever except the said cents and half-cents, shall pass current as money, or shall be paid, or offered to be paid or received in payment for any debt, demand, claims, matter or thing whatsoever

Im thinking they were never officially legal tender, but accepted as substitutes for silver coinage for small transactions. The fact that they were linked to and exchangeable for silver legal tender makes them constitutional, it's just a matter of making payments more convenient instead of minting coins with tiny amounts of silver in them.

Also stipulated is that no other copper coins can be used as payment except for the 150 tons authorized to be minted, and that using them will result in confiscation and a fine. So there were safeguards against runaway coining of non-precious metal coins. This differs from gold and silver,which the Mint would coin free of charge for anyone who brought in bullion.

[Krugerrand]

The Mint Act of May 8, 1792 (Copper Coinage) also says this:



Im thinking they were never officially legal tender, but accepted as substitutes for silver coinage for small transactions. The fact that they were linked to and exchangeable for silver legal tender makes them constitutional, it's just a matter of making payments more convenient instead of minting coins with tiny amounts of silver in them.

Also stipulated is that no other copper coins can be used as payment except for the 150 tons authorized to be minted, and that using them will result in confiscation and a fine. So there were safeguards against runaway coining of non-precious metal coins. This differs from gold and silver,which the Mint would coin free of charge for anyone who brought in bullion.

Oh how times changed. First, you brought the bullion and they minted it to coin and returned it to you. Then, they demanded you bring in the coin and they'd give you slips of paper in exchange.

Clearly the former sounds better than the latter.

[eduardo89]

Oh how times changed. First, you brought the bullion and they minted it to coin and returned it to you. Then, they demanded you bring in the coin and they'd give you slips of paper in exchange.

Clearly the former sounds better than the latter.

For a time they even coined your bullion free of charge!

[Krugerrand]

How about $0.03 silver pieces!
(ocr text not cleaned)

The coinage of tha silver 3-oont piece was flrst authorized by the eleventh section of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1851. Theweight of this piece was fixed at 121 grains, to be composed of threefoorth8silver and one-fourth copper. 'fhis coin was made a legal tender in paymcut of debts in sums of 30 cents or under. The object of the coinage of this piece seems to havo been to make a coin to correspond in denomination with the 3•cent postage-stamp, first authorized by the act above mentioned. The weight of thiA piece was reduced by an act approved March 3,1853, to 11.52 grains and the fineuess Increased to .900. The object of this change was evidently to make the fineness of the 3-cent piece cor•reSI)()lJd, nnd its weight proportional, to t he other subsidiary silver coius, 88 authorized by the act of February 21, 1803. The coinage of the silver 0 and 3•cellt pieces was discontinued by tbe act of February 12, 1873. Large amounts of these coins have in the last few years been transfl'rred to the mint and recoined into other denominations, principally dimes

[eduardo89]

How about $0.03 silver pieces!
(ocr text not cleaned)

They were tiny! 4/5 of a gram and a diameter of only 14mm (dimes are 18mm)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/1859_3CS_Obverse.jpg

[Krugerrand]

They were tiny! 4/5 of a gram and a diameter of only 14mm (dimes are 18mm)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/1859_3CS_Obverse.jpg

Did they weight more than current dimes? (answer only if you have the info handy)

[eduardo89]

Did they weight more than current dimes? (answer only if you have the info handy)

Dimes weigh 2.2 grams I believe. The 3¢ piece weighed 0.8 grams so about 1/3rd that of a dime

Originally they were 75% silver, but from 1854-1873 the silver content was raised to the usual 90%. This brought the weight down to 0.75 grams!