Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
The Coinage Act of 1792 was also unconstitutional, since it made gold and silver coin lawful tender all across the United States. The federal government doesn't have the power to make any currency legal tender for the payment of private debts.
http://fauxcapitalist.com/2011/10/18...igned-one-too/
"Loyola professor and senior Mises Institute fellow, Thomas DiLorenzo, likes to attack President Abraham Lincoln for his policies of questionable constitutional authority.
What DiLorenzo won’t do, however, is attack with the same zeal, the same alleged violation of the Constitution by the first, and generally highly regarded President of the United States, George Washington."
My impression is that most things the Federal Government does are unconstitutional but that doesn't seem to stop the legislature from passing them and the executive from enforcing them and the courts from upholding them.
Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.
NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012
"Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul
Brother Jonathan
From the article:
"Finally, Congress and the court violated the prohibition against ex post facto laws: “No . . . ex post facto Law shall be passed.”[3]"
There was Calder v. Bull (1798), wherein the Supreme Court decided that the ex post facto provision only applies to criminal cases.
While I don't agree with that decision, they used the great English jurist, William Blackstone, to support their decision.
This is an example of passages from the Constitution that don't mean what you think they mean, even before corrupt Supreme Court Justices got their hands on them.
Faux:
Thanks for your reply. Calder and Blackstone notwithstanding, the term ex post facto ought be applied in its literal sense, "after the fact" or no retroactive laws, whether civil or criminal. The first requisite of due process of law is that laws must plainly preannounce conduct which is illegal; that can't happen with an ex post facto law.
I disagree. I believe that is covered under Article 1 Section Eight which lists the powers of Congress:
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.htmlTo coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Connect With Us