Fareed Zakaria: The founding fathers

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by ngc6205

There isn't a contradiction. There are powers of the federal government that the states do not have. There are powers of state governments and there are powers shared by both. Article 1 Section 8 enumerates powers of Congress, Section 9 prohibits some things of the Federal government, and section 10 prohibits some things from the states.

As I have continuously stated, Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 is a restriction on STATE powers. There is nothing within that section that restricts the federal government.



It isn't a false statement. Let's quote from the act...



From an act passed in 1793 (1 Stat 300)


From the ninth Congress in 1806 (2 Stat 374)


This is what you said in an earlier post.


I have just pointed to three examples where Congress determined what is legal tender. I bet that the members of those sessions of Congress understood the Constitution better than you.

So the State cannot force me to pay sales tax because it cannot make anything but gold and silver a tender, but I must pay the sales tax because the Feds don't care what the States powers may be. And you do not see any contradiction. The Founders were perfectly lucid when writing these clauses which to a any rational person are clearly contradictory. Have you read the book "1984"???? Can 2 plus 2 equal 5 if the government so decrees when you know very well it is 4?

[ngc6205]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

So the State cannot force me to pay sales tax because it cannot make anything but gold and silver a tender, but I must pay the sales tax because the Feds don't care what the States powers may be. And you do not see any contradiction. The Founders were perfectly lucid when writing these clauses which to a any rational person are clearly contradictory. Have you read the book "1984"???? Can 2 plus 2 equal 5 if the government so decrees when you know very well it is 4?

Nonsense. I never said that the feds don't care what the state powers be. You are projecting your erroneous thought process into my statements AGAIN. Every citizen is subject to two separate but concurrent governments: a federal government and a state government. There are things that the federal government can do that the states cannot, like make treaties with other countries. There are things that the states can do exclusively, like regulate intrastate commerce and establish local governments etc. There are things that are shared between the two, such as setting up courts and creating and collecting taxes. The power of establishing a legal tender is PROHIBITED to the STATES except for gold and silver coin. There is NO such prohibition on the federal government.

Your car sales tax example fails because while it is a state tax being collected, the federal government can and does determine what is legal tender THROUGHOUT the country. To put this as simply as possible, Robert Prey is wrong.

[ngc6205]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Those are not examples of Congress determining Legal Tender but carrying out of Art. I, Sec. 8 mandate to "...regulate the value thereof."

Nonsense. Those acts do "...regulate the value" but they also establish the different coins as legal tender within the United States.

From "American state papers Part 3, Volume 3":
Congressman Lowndes presented a report of a committee to the House of Representatives on January 26, 1819...

Quote:

That the laws of the United States make all gold and silver coins issued from their Mint, and Spanish dollars, and the parts of such dollars, a legal tender for the payment of debts. The gold coins of Great Britain, Portugal, France, Spain, and the dominions of Spain, and the crowns and five-franc pieces of France, are also declared to be a tender, by an act passed on the 29th of April, 1816. These coins, excepting the five-franc pieces, had been made legal by two earlier acts, which had been allowed to expire; and their renewal, with slight modifications, must be attributed not to a disregard of the inconveniences which the use of coins, so various and unequal in their purity, must produce, but to the exigencies of a country endeavoring suddenly to recover a specie circulation.

Let me restate the obvious...Robert Prey is wrong.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by ngc6205

Nonsense. Those acts do "...regulate the value" but they also establish the different coins as legal tender within the United States.

From "American state papers Part 3, Volume 3":
Congressman Lowndes presented a report of a committee to the House of Representatives on January 26, 1819...


Let me restate the obvious...Robert Prey is wrong.

Now you surely do agree, that the Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land, correct?
And you surely cannot point to any Amendment that repeals Art., I., Sect. 10, correct?
Then ART. I, Sect 10 must still be the Supreme Law of the land. Now then, are you aware of any courts, any jurisdictions that uphold Art. I, Sec. 10? If I cannot decline to pay sales tax on a car, then what use is ARt. I, Sec. 10? Why is it there, never obeyed since about 1971 but never amended? If the Founders knew very well that irredeemable paper would one day be allowed to be legal tender, then why not give the congress the power to print such currency? Why the debate over the words "and emit bills of credit" and the motion to strike the clause carried? I am afraid this Orwellian conundrum you have created for yourself you must admit is impossible to reconcile. A equals A Two plus two equals four, not five. And the only tender that can be lawfully enforced throughout the states is Gold and Silver Coin because thats' what the Constitution says.

[ngc6205]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Now you surely do agree, that the Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land, correct?
And you surely cannot point to any Amendment that repeals Art., I., Sect. 10, correct?

Both correct.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Then ART. I, Sect 10 must still be the Supreme Law of the land. Now then, are you aware of any courts, any jurisdictions that uphold Art. I, Sec. 10?

I am sure that all of the federal courts in the U.S. uphold Art. 1, Sec. 10. What is flawed in this discussion is YOUR interpretation of Art. 1, Sec. 10.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

If I cannot decline to pay sales tax on a car, then what use is ARt. I, Sec. 10? Why is it there, never obeyed since about 1971 but never amended? If the Founders knew very well that irredeemable paper would one day be allowed to be legal tender, then why not give the congress the power to print such currency? Why the debate over the words "and emit bills of credit" and the motion to strike the clause carried? I am afraid this Orwellian conundrum you have created for yourself you must admit is impossible to reconcile. A equals A Two plus two equals four, not five. And the only tender that can be lawfully enforced throughout the states is Gold and Silver Coin because thats' what the Constitution says.

No. I have not created any conundrum for myself. The only problem here is your flawed interpretation. Once again, Robert Prey is wrong.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by ngc6205

Both correct.

I am sure that all of the federal courts in the U.S. uphold Art. 1, Sec. 10. What is flawed in this discussion is YOUR interpretation of Art. 1, Sec. 10. ].

All of the federal courts? But you claim Art. I,Sec. 10 only applies to the States. OK. Do you know of any State Courts that uphold the clause? Or as part of a "living" constitution, is the clause in fact DEAD?

[ngc6205]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

All of the federal courts?

The Constitution is national, so why not the federal courts?

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

But you claim Art. I,Sec. 10 only applies to the States.

It isn't a claim, it is a fact that it only applies to the states. That doesn't mean that federal courts would not rule on a case concerning the NATIONAL Constitution.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

OK. Do you know of any State Courts that uphold the clause? Or as part of a "living" constitution, is the clause in fact DEAD?

I do not know of any recent cases in state courts concerning the legal tender portion of that clause. The clause is obviously not dead. States do not enter into treaties or grant letters of marque. States are still prohibited from coining money or emitting bills of credit. Ex-post facto laws can still be challenged and states cannot grant titles of nobility.

Once again, the federal government has the power to determine legal tender nationwide. A state can make legal tender laws within its borders if it is not in conflict with Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1. However, it cannot override the federal law concerning legal tender, it can only add to it. Persons within the United States are subject to at least TWO jurisdictions. One national and one state.

"[T]he Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the state and federal governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people--who were, in Hamilton’ words, ‘the only proper objects of government."
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).

"The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National. ..."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).

"The United States is not a foreign sovereignty as regards the several States, but is a concurrent, and, within its jurisdiction, paramount sovereignty. Every citizen of a State is a subject of two distinct sovereignties, having concurrent jurisdiction in the State,-concurrent as to place and persons, though distinct as to subject-matter."
Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U.S. 130, 136 (1876); Mondou v. New York, N.H., & H.R. Co., 223 U.S. 1, 57 (1912).

[Robert Prey]

NGC6205 wrote:
"Once again, the federal government has the power to determine legal tender nationwide. A state can make legal tender laws within its borders if it is not in conflict with Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1. However, it cannot override the federal law concerning legal tender."

Can you cite any thing in the Constitution that empowers the Federal Government to determine what Legal Tender is? It's a simple question, and does not require a host of irrelevant, unconstitutional citations.

[ngc6205]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

NGC6205 wrote:
"Once again, the federal government has the power to determine legal tender nationwide. A state can make legal tender laws within its borders if it is not in conflict with Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1. However, it cannot override the federal law concerning legal tender."

Can you cite any thing in the Constitution that empowers the Federal Government to determine what Legal Tender is? It's a simple question, and does not require a host of irrelevant, unconstitutional citations.

Nothing I have posted is irrelevant. No citation I have used is unconstitutional. Your BELIEF about something does not make it unconstitutional. I have already answered the question.

What it comes down to is that you have INTERPRETED what the Constitution says. Unfortunately for you, in the United States, the courts determine the correct interpretation of the Constitution and laws. You interpretation runs counter to the interpretation of the courts. Therefore, you are wrong.

Has the Supreme Court ruled one way and then later changed its interpretation in a later case? Yes. However, that does not negate the FACT that the current interpretation of the Supreme Court is the current law. Considering that case precedent concerning legal tender dates back about 150 years, it is highly unlikely that the court will ever rule differently. You cannot ignore a law because of your interpretation. Your interpretation of law means NOTHING legally. You may not like it, but it still means that you are wrong.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by ngc6205

Nothing I have posted is irrelevant. No citation I have used is unconstitutional. Your BELIEF about something does not make it unconstitutional. I have already answered the question.

So humor me. Answer it again. You have not answered it because you can't. And I have cited chapter and verse of the Convention debates as to the question of whether to empower the congress to emit bills of credit which was roundly rejected. Art. I Sec. 10 is only there to make that Art. I, Sec. 8 prohibition by omission absolute. That the courts no longer obey the Constitution is nothing new. Happens all the time. But that does not make it right, nor are those decisions superior to the Constitution. Slavery was upheld by the Constitution in the Dredd Scott case. But that did not prevent the abrogation of that law by citizen jurors who knew that the Supreme Court was not the Supreme Law of the Land.

[ngc6205]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

So humor me. Answer it again. You have not answered it because you can't.

I did answer, just not directly.

Under the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, and to issue circulating notes for the money borrowed, its power to define the quality and force of those notes as currency is as broad as the like power over a metallic currency under the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. Under the two powers, taken together, congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

And I have cited chapter and verse of the Convention debates as to the question of whether to empower the congress to emit bills of credit which was roundly rejected.

The notes on the debates are not law. Never have been and never will be.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Art. I Sec. 10 is only there to make that Art. I, Sec. 8 prohibition by omission absolute.

No it isn't. I showed in the debates how the discussion on Aug. 28, 1787 was about prohibitions on state powers. Just because you can't see that only means that you have a reading comprehension problem.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

That the courts no longer obey the Constitution is nothing new.

According to you and it is only your opinion.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Happens all the time. But that does not make it right, nor are those decisions superior to the Constitution.

You still don't get it. The Supreme Court has the final say on the interpretation of the Constitution. You may think that they are wrong and you are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is, your opinion.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Slavery was upheld by the Constitution in the Dredd Scott case. But that did not prevent the abrogation of that law by citizen jurors who knew that the Supreme Court was not the Supreme Law of the Land.

Actually, as far as citizenship was concerned, the Dred Scott decision was law until Congress enacted certain citizenship laws and the reconstruction amendments after which, it made the decision moot.

Once again, you are wrong.

[Robert Prey]

NGC6305 wrote:
"I did answer, just not directly.
Under the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, and to issue circulating notes for the money borrowed, its power to define the quality and force of those notes as currency is as broad as the like power over a metallic currency under the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. Under the two powers, taken together, congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes."

Comment: No, you did not answer directly because you can't. It isn't there. All you can do is to repeat the tortured rationalizations of others that permit what the Const. forbids.

The motion to delete (and emit bills of credit) together with Art. I.,Sec. 10 cut off any other rational interpretation.

For the interpretation of this record, Madison, the best possible witness, has left this note: "Striking out the words cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts."

Moreover, Madison's notes are acceptable as evidence in any court of law.

[Robert Prey]

NGC6205 wrote:
"I do not know of any recent cases in state courts concerning the legal tender portion of that clause. The clause is obviously not dead."

The clause is not dead you say, but you don't know of any cases where it is being upheld. Neither do I. So, while you say the clause is still in force, it is obviously not in force. And yet, you see no contradiction, though it has never been amended. So what you have here is a classic case of Orwellian Doublethink. Because I actually think you are serious.

[ngc6205]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

NGC6305 wrote:
"I did answer, just not directly.
Under the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, and to issue circulating notes for the money borrowed, its power to define the quality and force of those notes as currency is as broad as the like power over a metallic currency under the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. Under the two powers, taken together, congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes."

Comment: No, you did not answer directly because you can't. It isn't there. All you can do is to repeat the tortured rationalizations of others that permit what the Const. forbids.

Article 1 Section 8 under the power to borrow and the power over currency.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

The motion to delete (and emit bills of credit) together with Art. I.,Sec. 10 cut off any other rational interpretation.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 10 ARE PROHIBITIONS ON THE STATES ONLY. It is clear even from Madison's notes on the debates that those clauses are prohibitions on the states and not the federal government. If you cannot even read Madison's notes properly, why do adamantly believe you have the correct interpretation?

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

For the interpretation of this record, Madison, the best possible witness, has left this note: "Striking out the words cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts."

Let's look at the entire footnote instead of just one part of it.

Quote:

This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, 24 and particularly for making the bills a tender 24 either for public or private debts

He did not explain why he thought that striking out the words 'and emit bills' would leave the power to emit bills, and deny the power to make them a tender in payment of debts. Also, Mr. Gerry proposed to included the prohibitions from Section 10 also against the federal government by duplicating them in section 9 and his motion was not seconded.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Moreover, Madison's notes are acceptable as evidence in any court of law.

Madison's notes are not law. They might be used in a discussion about the Constitution and I have my doubts about whether they would be considered 'evidence'. However, Madison's notes are definitely not law.

[ngc6205]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

NGC6205 wrote:
"I do not know of any recent cases in state courts concerning the legal tender portion of that clause. The clause is obviously not dead."

The clause is not dead you say, but you don't know of any cases where it is being upheld. Neither do I. So, while you say the clause is still in force, it is obviously not in force. And yet, you see no contradiction, though it has never been amended. So what you have here is a classic case of Orwellian Doublethink. Because I actually think you are serious.

No, it isn't Orwellian Doublethink. Actually, what it is is a fallacy, except it is you. You came to a conclusion from premises that do not support the conclusion. Just because the two of us do not know of any current cases does not mean that the clause isn't being enforced or even that there are not any current cases. In order for a court to rule on anything, a party has to properly bring the issue before the court.

Once again, Robert Prey is wrong.

ETA: To be fair, I reread what I wrote, "I do not know of any recent cases in state courts concerning the legal tender portion of that clause. The clause is obviously not dead." That is also a fallacy in that the conclusion is not supported by the premise in that statement. However, the only evidence that could be used to show the clause is dead would be if ONE OF THE STATES attempted to do one of the prohibited activities. Without evidence to the contrary, the clause is not dead.

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Taken from his last Charlie Rose interview:

Whenever we have a problem, we tend to think that our Constitution is the best ever created in the history of the world. The people who wrote the Constitution were demi-gods, it never needs to be changed. Our political system is the best in the world. The truth is we have a pretty complicated, antiquated system that’s grown pretty dysfunctional.

Do you agree with Zakaria's views here?

Did he specify what part of the Constitution he doesn't like? I'd like to see him at least rule out user error before he starts bad-mouthing our founding documents.

Originally Posted by The Beatles

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by ngc6205

However, the only evidence that could be used to show the clause is dead would be if ONE OF THE STATES attempted to do one of the prohibited activities. Without evidence to the contrary, the clause is not dead.

Let me cite the "authority" of a poster with the moniker "Thinker" who categorically stated that if I tried to use Art I., Sec. 10 in order to decline to pay the sales tax on a car paid for in FRNS, it would be to no avail.

[ngc6205]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Let me cite the "authority" of a poster with the moniker "Thinker" who categorically stated that if I tried to use Art I., Sec. 10 in order to decline to pay the sales tax on a car paid for in FRNS, it would be to no avail.

First, the 'Thinker' designation is a function of the forum software and not anything I did except reaching a particular number of posts. Look under your username.

As far as the rest of your assertions, go ahead and try it. BTW, Robert Prey is wrong.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by ngc6205

First, the 'Thinker' designation is a function of the forum software and not anything I did except reaching a particular number of posts. Look under your username.

As far as the rest of your assertions, go ahead and try it. BTW, Robert Prey is wrong.

Well, as an avid student of the Money Issue, I just happen to know of three such cases that went before the State courts. In the first, the individual protested a minor traffic ticket on the grounds that the fine was designated in a form of money not sanctioned by law. AS it happens, this was not only supported by the Constitution, but also by State Statuette. The result? The judge refused to hear the case and instead suspended the Driver's license.

In the 2nd Case, an individual refused to purchase a village vehicle sticker in a form of money not sanctioned by law, but to show his lawful intent, he offered a form of promissory note called a Public Office Money Certificate with the proper amount printed in dollars, redeemable in only Lawful money pending a court determination of what that was (legal tender). The village accepted the POMC and tried to cash it (unsuccessfully.) So it came to court and the defendant demanded a Jury Trial. Now what do you think would happen if a Jury was allowed to see what the Constitution says? Probably most jurors would simply goose-step to whatever the judge tells them, but supposing there is just one rare person on that jury who knows his Jury rights? One person could vote "not guilty" and who knows, that single vote could bring down the entire system. So, what is the court to do to prevent such a calamity? What the judge did, was to order the parties into a back room (away from the public and the jury and any reporters that might be present), and with an obvious arrangement with the Prosecutor, the Prosecutor presented a "Motion In Limine" (a motion to limited the subject matter of the trail before the jury) under penalty of Contempt. And what do you think was to be censored from the trial? Why, the Constitution, of course. That little book we were all supposed to learn about and be tested in the 8th grade so that we all knew our rights. But we were never taught what actually happens when you try to assert those rights. And so, not being able to make a defense of any kind, the person was convicted.

The third case involved an individual who was owed money by the state, and demanded he be paid only in lawful money, and not FRNS. This particular case made it all the way to the Supreme Court. And the Court (actually the clerks who screen the cases) instead of deciding the case on its merits, refused to take the case.

So much for the Living Constitution and Art. I, Sec. 10 alive and well ... somewhere.

[Drachasor]

Too bad the constitution doesn't say what you think it says, eh? The Federal Government is rather explicitly allowed to make legal tender, and what they do affects all States in the Union.

[ngc6205]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Well, as an avid student of the Money Issue, I just happen to know of three such cases that went before the State courts. In the first, the individual protested a minor traffic ticket on the grounds that the fine was designated in a form of money not sanctioned by law. AS it happens, this was not only supported by the Constitution, but also by State Statuette. The result? The judge refused to hear the case and instead suspended the Driver's license.

So you say. Anecdotal stories are not proof. Citation to actual case that can be confirmed is needed.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

In the 2nd Case, an individual refused to purchase a village vehicle sticker in a form of money not sanctioned by law, but to show his lawful intent, he offered a form of promissory note called a Public Office Money Certificate with the proper amount printed in dollars, redeemable in only Lawful money pending a court determination of what that was (legal tender).

A "Public Office Money Certificate" is a bogus financial instrument. If you actually believe in that kind of nonsense, then you are more delusional than I thought.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

The village accepted the POMC and tried to cash it (unsuccessfully.)

Obviously the clerk did not recognize it for the sovereignoramous nonsense that it was. Of course they were unsuccessful in cashing it since it is worthless.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

So it came to court and the defendant demanded a Jury Trial. Now what do you think would happen if a Jury was allowed to see what the Constitution says? Probably most jurors would simply goose-step to whatever the judge tells them, but supposing there is just one rare person on that jury who knows his Jury rights? One person could vote "not guilty" and who knows, that single vote could bring down the entire system. So, what is the court to do to prevent such a calamity? What the judge did, was to order the parties into a back room (away from the public and the jury and any reporters that might be present), and with an obvious arrangement with the Prosecutor, the Prosecutor presented a "Motion In Limine" (a motion to limited the subject matter of the trail before the jury) under penalty of Contempt. And what do you think was to be censored from the trial? Why, the Constitution, of course. That little book we were all supposed to learn about and be tested in the 8th grade so that we all knew our rights. But we were never taught what actually happens when you try to assert those rights. And so, not being able to make a defense of any kind, the person was convicted.

So you say, how about a case citation.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

The third case involved an individual who was owed money by the state, and demanded he be paid only in lawful money, and not FRNS. This particular case made it all the way to the Supreme Court. And the Court (actually the clerks who screen the cases) instead of deciding the case on its merits, refused to take the case.

So you say, how about a case citation. BTW, a writ for certiorari is not "all the way to the Supreme Court". All the way to the Supreme Court is to actually have the cert approved.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

So much for the Living Constitution and Art. I, Sec. 10 alive and well ... somewhere.

It is alive and well right here in the U.S. Anecdotal stories to cases that only show that the defendant was an idiot does not make your case.

[Robert Prey]

NGC6205 wrote:

"A "Public Office Money Certificate" is a bogus financial instrument. If you actually believe in that kind of nonsense, then you are more delusional than I thought."

Comment: It's not a financial instrument at all, but merely a tangible means of showing a potential jury a good faith objection of the litigant to unconstitutional money.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

Too bad the constitution doesn't say what you think it says, eh? The Federal Government is rather explicitly allowed to make legal tender, and what they do affects all States in the Union.

There is no wording in the Constitution that empowers the Federal Government to determine what legal tender is. If you think there is, cite it.

Opinion of Thomas Jefferson.

"The federal government — I deny their power to make paper money a legal tender."

[Robert Prey]

NGC wrote: It is alive and well right here in the U.S. Anecdotal stories to cases that only show that the defendant was an idiot does not make your case

If it's alive and well, then how can you say the defendant was an idiot? It is you who claim the law is alive and well but cannot find a single instance where it is upheld. A very strange cognitive dissonance.

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

There is no wording in the Constitution that empowers the Federal Government to determine what legal tender is. If you think there is, cite it.

Opinion of Thomas Jefferson.

"The federal government — I deny their power to make paper money a legal tender."

Quote:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

"Coin" can cover many things (including paper money of course) and nowhere in the Constitution does it state it must be directly tied to precious metals. Indeed, "regulate the Value thereof" is pretty clear indication they can decide on whatever method they want.

Jefferson wasn't right about everything -- heck, he had a habit of arguing alternatively on both sides of any given issue. Indeed, since they Federal Government was issuing paper money early on it is a pretty clear indication that the majority of people in government disagreed with him on this, at least assuming he was talking about constitutionality there.

You don't happen to have a source as to when and where and under what circumstances Jefferson said that quote? Given that Google only comes up with less than a dozen hits on even the second half of it, I am a bit curious as to its origin.

[ngc6205]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Originally Posted by NGC6205

A "Public Office Money Certificate" is a bogus financial instrument. If you actually believe in that kind of nonsense, then you are more delusional than I thought.

Comment: It's not a financial instrument at all, but merely a tangible means of showing a potential jury a good faith objection of the litigant to unconstitutional money.

Let's take a look at exactly what you wrote in your anecdotal story...

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

an individual refused to purchase a village vehicle sticker in a form of money not sanctioned by law, but to show his lawful intent, he offered a form of promissory note called a Public Office Money Certificate with the proper amount printed in dollars, redeemable in only Lawful money pending a court determination of what that was (legal tender).

A promissory note is a financial instrument. Specifically, a promissory note is a two-party negotiable instrument in which one person makes an unconditional, written promise to pay another person (the payee), or a person specified by the payee, a fixed amount of money either on demand or at a particular time in the future.

A "Public Office Money Certificate" is not any form of promissory note. The village idiot in your story attempted to pass it off in order to pay for his village vehicle sticker. IOW, he attempted to use it like a financial instrument. What he did was commit FRAUD.

There are several conditions that a "promise to pay" must meet in order to be negotiable (IOW, in order to be cashed by the recipient). One of those conditions is that the note must be payable on demand or at a definite time. A promise to pay after some possible future event occurs is not a definite time. The public office money certificate is BOGUS.

[ngc6205]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

NGC wrote: It is alive and well right here in the U.S. Anecdotal stories to cases that only show that the defendant was an idiot does not make your case

If it's alive and well, then how can you say the defendant was an idiot? It is you who claim the law is alive and well but cannot find a single instance where it is upheld. A very strange cognitive dissonance.

If the states do not violate the prohibition listed in that section, then there are not going to be any cases. The three anecdotal cases you mention (even if you did provide a valid citation), would not be violations of Article 1, Section 10. So, you have yet to show that the clause is NOT being upheld.

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

"Coin" can cover many things (including paper money of course)

I just wanted to add that the word "coin" meant "create" in a more generalized sense for a LONG time, before the 1500s even. Just in case someone wants to try claiming it had some highly specialized meaning back when the Constitution was written. It did not.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

"Coin" can cover many things (including paper money of course) and nowhere in the Constitution does it state it must be directly tied to precious metals. Indeed, "regulate the Value thereof" is pretty clear indication they can decide on whatever method they want..

It might be helpful to do some scholarly research on the meaning of words before you expound on your own unfounded fantasies. The eminent 19th century historian George Bancroft, a man who was a contemporary of many of Founding Fathers as a young man, has written extensively on the subject. Here are some excerpts from

A PLEA FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
Wounded in the House of Its Guardians
by George Bancroft

the word "money" in all colonial legislation was used exclusively for gold and silver coin.


In the interpretation of words a cardinal rule is, to conform to usage. In 1787 every English dictionary defined "money" as metallic coin;

The constitution of the United States authorizes their legislature to coin money; and of the meaning of the word in that clause, no doubt can exist.


Extract from a speech delivered by DANIEL WEBSTER in the Senate of the United States, on the 21st of December, 1836, on the subject of the Specie Circular.

"Most unquestionably there is no legal tender, and there can be no legal tender, in this country, under the authority of this government or any other, but gold and silver, either the coinage of our own mints, or foreign coins, at rates regulated by congress. This is a constitutional principle, perfectly plain, and of the very highest importance. The states are expressly prohibited from making anything but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts; and although no such express prohibition is applied to congress, yet as congress has no power granted to it, in this respect, but to coin money and to regulate the value of foreign coins, it clearly has no power to substitute paper, or anything else, for coin..."

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by ngc6205

If the states do not violate the prohibition listed in that section, then there are not going to be any cases. The three anecdotal cases you mention (even if you did provide a valid citation), would not be violations of Article 1, Section 10. So, you have yet to show that the clause is NOT being upheld.

So, if the three cited cases are not violations of Art. I, Sec. 10, then just what would be a violation? A specific example, please.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by ngc6205

Let's take a look at exactly what you wrote in your anecdotal story...


A promissory note is a financial instrument. Specifically, a promissory note is a two-party negotiable instrument in which one person makes an unconditional, written promise to pay another person (the payee), or a person specified by the payee, a fixed amount of money either on demand or at a particular time in the future.

A "Public Office Money Certificate" is not any form of promissory note. The village idiot in your story attempted to pass it off in order to pay for his village vehicle sticker. IOW, he attempted to use it like a financial instrument. What he did was commit FRAUD.

There are several conditions that a "promise to pay" must meet in order to be negotiable (IOW, in order to be cashed by the recipient). One of those conditions is that the note must be payable on demand or at a definite time. A promise to pay after some possible future event occurs is not a definite time. The public office money certificate is BOGUS.

No, it was most definitely not a fraud. The instrument clearly stated on its face, that it was not a check, but promise to pay in lawful money pending on the court's interpretation of the words "lawful money".

[Robert Prey]

NGC6205 wrote:
"So you say. Anecdotal stories are not proof. Citation to actual case that can be confirmed is needed."

Comment: Would a citation make any difference? Do you doubt the veracity of what I have cited? Do you doubt that a Black Robed Oath Taker would deny a defendant his only defense before the jury -- the Constitution of the United States? Are you naive enough to think that this does not happen every single day in the courts across America?

[ngc6205]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

It might be helpful to do some scholarly research on the meaning of words before you expound on your own unfounded fantasies. The eminent 19th century historian George Bancroft, a man who was a contemporary of many of Founding Fathers as a young man, has written extensively on the subject. Here are some excerpts from

A PLEA FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
Wounded in the House of Its Guardians
by George Bancroft

the word "money" in all colonial legislation was used exclusively for gold and silver coin.


In the interpretation of words a cardinal rule is, to conform to usage. In 1787 every English dictionary defined "money" as metallic coin;

The constitution of the United States authorizes their legislature to coin money; and of the meaning of the word in that clause, no doubt can exist.


Extract from a speech delivered by DANIEL WEBSTER in the Senate of the United States, on the 21st of December, 1836, on the subject of the Specie Circular.

"Most unquestionably there is no legal tender, and there can be no legal tender, in this country, under the authority of this government or any other, but gold and silver, either the coinage of our own mints, or foreign coins, at rates regulated by congress. This is a constitutional principle, perfectly plain, and of the very highest importance. The states are expressly prohibited from making anything but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts; and although no such express prohibition is applied to congress, yet as congress has no power granted to it, in this respect, but to coin money and to regulate the value of foreign coins, it clearly has no power to substitute paper, or anything else, for coin..."

First, Dr. Bancroft wrote that close to the end of his life. His recollections of his early life may have altered over time. Second, he was born in late 1800 and he spent 1817 to 1822 in Germany. He may not have had as much interaction with founding fathers as you may believe. Third, while he is undoubtedly a great historian and writer, what he wrote is simply his opinion about the Constitution. It isn't law. Fourth, earlier, I provided a quote from Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution which you derided as irrelevant. Justice Story was appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison in 1810.

[ngc6205]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

So, if the three cited cases are not violations of Art. I, Sec. 10, then just what would be a violation? A specific example, please.

If a STATE passed a law violating any of the prohibitions listed in Article 1 Section 10. If the state of Florida attempted to enter into a treaty with Brazil, that would be a violation.

[ngc6205]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

No, it was most definitely not a fraud. The instrument clearly stated on its face, that it was not a check, but promise to pay in lawful money pending on the court's interpretation of the words "lawful money".

If he presented it and received a village vehicle sticker in return, he presented a bogus instrument and received something of value. It is little different than passing a bad check. A good check or valid negotiable instrument can be cashed by the payee. A public office money certificate cannot be cashed by the payee since it is bogus and is not a negotiable instrument. You and the person in your anecdotal story may not think it was fraud, but it was fraud.

[ngc6205]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

NGC6205 wrote:
"So you say. Anecdotal stories are not proof. Citation to actual case that can be confirmed is needed."

Comment: Would a citation make any difference?

Yes, a citation would make a difference. That way I could look up the case on Pacer or Westlaw and verify what you say happened.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Do you doubt the veracity of what I have cited?

Yes, I do. My favorite Aunt Sally grows prize winning tomatoes in her garden on the shores of the Sea of Tranquility. Do you doubt the veracity of that? Without a citation, an anecdotal story is nothing more than just unsubstantiated words.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Do you doubt that a Black Robed Oath Taker would deny a defendant his only defense before the jury -- the Constitution of the United States? Are you naive enough to think that this does not happen every single day in the courts across America?

Yes, I doubt the defendant had a firm grasp on the meaning of the Constitution. Much like tax protesters who don't understand the meaning of the word, "includes".

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by Travis

That is the question I so want to put to the Tea Party people.

They act like all change is bad. Thus their constant refrains to go back to the original document.

The one without voter protection?

The one that allowed gross gender discrimination?

The one that allowed slavery?

That one?

WHY?

I finally found a statement about the tea party here that I can pretty much agree with.
The don't want all poor babies to starve or get sick, they don't want all gays to go back to Africa, but they do do act as if the Constitution is some infallible document written by godlike individuals. In general it has served well and stood the test of time and changed through amendments.

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

It might be helpful to do some scholarly research on the meaning of words before you expound on your own unfounded fantasies. The eminent 19th century historian George Bancroft, a man who was a contemporary of many of Founding Fathers as a young man, has written extensively on the subject. Here are some excerpts from

I did do research on the word "coin." I posted a link. You ignored it. Do whatever you want, but the word "coin" has had a very broad meaning for at least twice as long as the USA has existed.

Further, "money" was used for paper money certainly by the Massachusetts Bay colony almost a hundred years before the Revolutionary war -- this money didn't even have a gold or silver exchange.

Given that the United States immediately set up a bank that issued paper currency, I find it a bit ridiculous to propose that this wasn't allowed by the Constitution. I believe you are depending on how hard it is to look up how words were used 200+ years go. It is indeed tricky to do this. I'd note that you can find people today who try to stick to highly specific meanings of certain words, despite the word having a broader meaning. You have merely done this regarding the terms "coin" and "money" with someone 200 years ago.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

I finally found a statement about the tea party here that I can pretty much agree with.
The don't want all poor babies to starve or get sick, they don't want all gays to go back to Africa, but they do do act as if the Constitution is some infallible document written by godlike individuals. In general it has served well and stood the test of time and changed through amendments.

Unlike the great unwashed, the Tea Party has heard of something called the Amendments. I think that's the Constitution most are referring to. You might try reading them.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by ngc6205

If a STATE passed a law violating any of the prohibitions listed in Article 1 Section 10. If the state of Florida attempted to enter into a treaty with Brazil, that would be a violation.

Oh, then say for example a state passed a law making something other than gold and silver coin a tender, that would be a violation?