Liberty Dollar 2

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote:I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense to me. Where does the constitution talk on the minting ability of private citizens, it doesn't. The ONLY thing the constitution speaks of is "coined" money.

A mint is an industrial facility which manufactures coins for currency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mint_(coin)

You are playing semantic games void of intelligent reason. I'm going to explain this crap only one more time. I feel you simply do not like what you are reading. If you want to continue fighting this issue, go fight with someone else. Your nonsensical resistance is becoming a waste of time.

I'm not playing semantic games. You're taking two separate words "mint" and "coins" and claiming "mint" is the key word and "coins" is to be ignored. The other glaring fact you are clearly ignoring is there were probably millions of private notes in circulation prior to the FED. Add that to the fact that the constitution specifically states "coin" and who is playing games, not me. You just totally ignore that fact as if it doesn't even exist.


btw, try looking up the word "coin" and then come back to me.

Not printed money and that is only in relation to states. There is nothing forbidding citizen's from coining or printing.

Read and digest the 10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Are you ignoring the word "reserved" there? I appears to me you are. Reserved clearly means ONLY. There's nothing in that sentence that says the government has exclusive power. When the government has "exclusive" power the constitution clearly says so, such as in the exclusive power of legislation. "Exclusive" would be redundant if that were not the case now wouldn't it.

The feds have the power to coin money. Since that power was delegated to them by the fed constitution, the 10th amendment tells us that if that power was not prohibited to the States, they could do it also. However, Art 1 sec 10 states that States are not permitting to coin money. So the States cannot coin money. legally. The 10th amendment further states that powers not delegated to the Feds are reserved to the ppl. Well we the ppl cannot coin money legally because that power was already delegated to the feds, so sorry Steve.

Ok let's analyze what you're saying here. You said "if that power was not prohibited to the States, they could do it also". But then you make a leap and claim ppl are prohibited because the power was delegated to the federal government. The PPL and the states are in the same sentence. So logically IF you were right wouldn't the sates by default be prohibited also and there would be no need to say they were prohibited?

btw where does the government get the power to regulate the minting of all money?

From within the us constitution. Art 1 sec 8 cl 5 for coins. I Dont know exactly where they get the power to regulate the FRN's.

Again you ignored the word "coin" but let's go farther. Assuming your analysis is valid then wouldn't Art 1 sec 8 cl 5 also prohibit the States without more since that power was delegated to the Federal government?

Your position seems to be that because the constitution grants, even though it doesn't say its exclusive, the federal government the ability to coin money it therefore bars private citizens from doing so. If that's the logic we use then the same constitution should bar States, counties or cities from taxing because congress has been granted the power to tax.

the power to coin money and the power to tax are two separate constitutional issues.

Yes there are but I can find no logic in your reasoning to apply a principle to one issue and not there other. You claim that because the power is delegated to the federal government everyone else is prohibited. Where exactly does it allow for counties or cities to tax? They aren't States.

What I'm saying is printing notes isn't illegal, not even a strained reading of the constitution forbids that, yet they took the silver and gold that backed notes. What crime was committed? Are you going to claim that note I posted even remotely looks like a U.S. dollar?

See above.

I guess if you ignore the word coin it works....however that word will be there whether you like it or not. There will also be a century of evidence of private institutions that printed notes also, and no one ever challenged it.

Are you guaranteed a uniform rate on Euro's here in the U.S. by the federal government? Of course not, what's the difference when it comes to private currency?

Euros are foreign currency, a currency that does not circulate in the USA. The private currency you speak of would be domestic to the USA, and thus subject to federal law.

So as long as they're printed in a foreign country then they're ok to use here and outside the jurisdiction of the federal government?

Why should we be guaranteed by the federal government a uniform rate on private currency? The only thing that should be guaranteed is their own currency.

It would ensure uniform value in the marketplace, and that would ensure less problems (including civil and criminal suits). It is also guaranteed by the fed constitution.

Strange how there were no "civil and criminal suits for over a century, even right after the adoption of the constitution. It wasn't just until recently the government has claimed this exclusive power. They seem to have acquired this special ability to find otherwise unknown powers more and more frequently...I guess they were just hidden for 200 years.

[Pottapaug1938]

Steve, I had intended to make no further response to your tired old arguments; but when you say that there were probably millions of private notes in circulation prior to the FED, you're at best stretching the truth. The "broken bank notes" of which we spoke in the predecessor thread were gone well before the FED was even conceived, and for good reason -- no one trusted them. The closest that we ever came, in the last part of the 19th century, were the National Currency issues (the ones with the brown numerals and seals). These were joined by what were called "Federal Reserve Bank Notes", although the notes were still captioned "National Currency". These were obsolete by the 1930s.

Now -- PLEASE come up with something new to say on the subject. Don't play semantic word games (oh, yes you ARE playing them!) with us, or else you'll be the only one posting here before long.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

SteveSy wrote:I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense to me. Where does the constitution talk on the minting ability of private citizens, it doesn't. The ONLY thing the constitution speaks of is "coined" money.

A mint is an industrial facility which manufactures coins for currency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mint_(coin)

You are playing semantic games void of intelligent reason. I'm going to explain this crap only one more time. I feel you simply do not like what you are reading. If you want to continue fighting this issue, go fight with someone else. Your nonsensical resistance is becoming a waste of time.

I'm not playing semantic games. You're taking two separate words "mint" and "coins" and claiming "mint" is the key word and "coins" is to be ignored. The other glaring fact you are clearly ignoring is there were probably millions of private notes in circulation prior to the FED. Add that to the fact that the constitution specifically states "coin" and who is playing games, not me. You just totally ignore that fact as if it doesn't even exist.


btw, try looking up the word "coin" and then come back to me. And you point is?......

I actually DID look up "coin" after your suggestion....and, once again, your point is? I really don't want to debate it any further with you, but i am curious as to what your point is.....

Not printed money and that is only in relation to states. There is nothing forbidding citizen's from coining or printing.

Read and digest the 10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Are you ignoring the word "reserved" there? I appears to me you are. Reserved clearly means ONLY. There's nothing in that sentence that says the government has exclusive power. When the government has "exclusive" power the constitution clearly says so, such as in the exclusive power of legislation. "Exclusive" would be redundant if that were not the case now wouldn't it. Steve, I feel you simply don't like what your reading and thus your starting up round XXX of semantic word games, twisted logic..I'm not debating your twisted logic any more.

The feds have the power to coin money. Since that power was delegated to them by the fed constitution, the 10th amendment tells us that if that power was not prohibited to the States, they could do it also. However, Art 1 sec 10 states that States are not permitting to coin money. So the States cannot coin money. legally. The 10th amendment further states that powers not delegated to the Feds are reserved to the ppl. Well we the ppl cannot coin money legally because that power was already delegated to the feds, so sorry Steve.

Ok let's analyze what you're saying here. You said "if that power was not prohibited to the States, they could do it also". But then you make a leap and claim ppl are prohibited because the power was delegated to the federal government. The PPL and the states are in the same sentence. So logically IF you were right wouldn't the sates by default be prohibited also and there would be no need to say they were prohibited?

btw where does the government get the power to regulate the minting of all money?

From within the us constitution. Art 1 sec 8 cl 5 for coins. I Dont know exactly where they get the power to regulate the FRN's.

Again you ignored the word "coin" but let's go farther. Assuming your analysis is valid then wouldn't Art 1 sec 8 cl 5 also prohibit the States without more since that power was delegated to the Federal government?

Your position seems to be that because the constitution grants, even though it doesn't say its exclusive, the federal government the ability to coin money it therefore bars private citizens from doing so. If that's the logic we use then the same constitution should bar States, counties or cities from taxing because congress has been granted the power to tax.

the power to coin money and the power to tax are two separate constitutional issues.

Yes there are but I can find no logic in your reasoning to apply a principle to one issue and not there other. You claim that because the power is delegated to the federal government everyone else is prohibited. Where exactly does it allow for counties or cities to tax? They aren't States.

What I'm saying is printing notes isn't illegal, not even a strained reading of the constitution forbids that, yet they took the silver and gold that backed notes. What crime was committed? Are you going to claim that note I posted even remotely looks like a U.S. dollar?

See above.

I guess if you ignore the word coin it works....however that word will be there whether you like it or not. There will also be a century of evidence of private institutions that printed notes also, and no one ever challenged it.

Are you guaranteed a uniform rate on Euro's here in the U.S. by the federal government? Of course not, what's the difference when it comes to private currency?

Euros are foreign currency, a currency that does not circulate in the USA. The private currency you speak of would be domestic to the USA, and thus subject to federal law.

So as long as they're printed in a foreign country then they're ok to use here and outside the jurisdiction of the federal government?

Why should we be guaranteed by the federal government a uniform rate on private currency? The only thing that should be guaranteed is their own currency.

It would ensure uniform value in the marketplace, and that would ensure less problems (including civil and criminal suits). It is also guaranteed by the fed constitution.

Strange how there were no "civil and criminal suits for over a century, even right after the adoption of the constitution. So you researched equity and criminal suits for over the last century, and that has is what you found, eh? Please tell me what web sites you performed your searches with?

I'm not even going there, your statement makes absolutely no sense in context to this conversation.

It wasn't just until recently the government has claimed this exclusive power. They seem to have acquired this special ability to find otherwise unknown powers more and more frequently...I guess they were just hidden for 200 years.

Steve, I agree with Pottapaug1938, come up with something new, or you will be the only one left standing in this thread, and I'll add in that if you should decide that you are willing to participate in an intelligent discussion/debate, then I will continue discussing this with you.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Whoa, Steve, you just got called out by GaSE.

That's bad.

[SteveSy]

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

I'm not the one who is ignoring the wording. To "coin Money" is not printing notes. They did have notes back then. The obvious reason for giving the federal government the power to coin money was because their weight can be assured, same with the power to regulate foreign coin. Notes don't have that requirement. This is also why weights and measures is in the same sentence.

I think its hilarious I'm getting slammed because someone else wants me to accept their modified version of the wording in the constitution. I also thinks its hilarious that GSE can't explain how private banks and institutions issued notes for almost a century without federal intervention. Instead of dealing with that issue and giving any kind of reasonable explanation for this giant hole in his interpretation he just ignores it and tells me he won't play anymore unless I accept his theory, giant holes and all. Fine by me....

[GoldandSilverEagles]

I'm not the one who is ignoring the wording. To "coin Money" is not printing notes. They did have notes back then.

You are the one ignored my opinion that the feds delegated the authority of printing money to the fed by way of the fed reserve act, which I have mentioned numerous times.

The obvious reason for giving the federal government the power to coin money was because their weight can be assured, same with the power to regulate foreign coin. Notes don't have that requirement. This is also why weights and measures is in the same sentence.

then why in hades are you playing all these 'playing dumb' word/head games?

I think its hilarious I'm getting slammed because someone else wants me to accept their modified version of the wording in the constitution. [/quote.] LMAO!!!!! You think I slammed you????...hahahahahahahahaha....I'm being nice in drawing boundaries with your head games.

I also thinks its hilarious that GSE can't explain how private banks and institutions issued notes for almost a century without federal intervention.

Who printed and issued said notes? Were they issue under the authority of the fed govt or the fed reserve?

Instead of dealing with that issue and giving any kind of reasonable explanation for this giant hole in his interpretation he just ignores it and tells me he won't play anymore unless I accept his theory, giant holes and all. Fine by me....

I have no problems discussing issues, intelligently.

I agree. I feel there are a TON of flaws in the system, but it is what it is. If you do not like it, start a legal movement at the grass roots level, including contacting your Senators and Congress reps

BUT....arguing how f^cked up the system is, without doing anything (legally) about it accomplishes nothing, except to make one feel good in bitching about it.

[SteveSy]

I also thinks its hilarious that GSE can't explain how private banks and institutions issued notes for almost a century without federal intervention.

Who printed and issued said notes? Were they issue under the authority of the fed govt or the fed reserve?

Neither...they were private institutions. There were more than banks. The Federal Reserve didn't even exist prior to 1913.

I agree. I feel there are a TON of flaws in the system, but it is what it is. If you do not like it, start a legal movement at the grass roots level, including contacting your Senators and Congress reps

Do a little research on private issue notes from banks and other entities and see that they were common prior to say 1900 and ask yourself why the federal government didn't intervene. Then ask yourself how they recently can claim this exclusive power after years of not doing so.

All of those institutions would have been committing a federal crime yet I can't find a single supreme court case ever shutting them down for violating article I section 8.

Also, I found this in one of the first renditions of the constitution prior to ratification.

"To coin money, and regulate the value of all coins, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

- http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?h ... mem_BEkG::

This appears to be what you claim is the correct interpretation, yet it was changed, why if that's the correct interpretation? One other thing that you'll find is that printing paper currency was thought to be prohibited by the federal government. The clause to "coin money" was not a clause that was intended to mean any form of money.

[fortinbras]

To "coin Money" is not printing notes. They did have notes back then. The obvious reason for giving the federal government the power to coin money was because their weight can be assured, same with the power to regulate foreign coin. Notes don't have that requirement. This is also why weights and measures is in the same sentence.

As a matter of fact, the Founding Fathers were great ones for paper money. Benjamin Franklin printed up the paper money for a multitude of the colonies and even invented an anti-counterfeiting technique of tossing a natural tree leaf into the printing press to create an uncopyable filigree. They didn't have much choice about issuing paper because the first American gold and silver mines weren't even discovered until more than a decade after the Constitution was drafted.

In fact, the talk about regulating the value of US currency indicates that the Founders had something other than just precious metal coins in mind. If the only coinage were precious metal coins, of intrinsic value, then Congress would have no power over regulating its value at all -- the value of the coins would be regulated entirely by the market price for the metallic ingredient. The Congressional regulation of value only makes sense if the coinage includes paper and base metals like copper.

The Legal Tender decisions of the US Supreme Court in the 1870s also upheld Congress's authority to issue paper money.

[SteveSy]

To "coin Money" is not printing notes. They did have notes back then. The obvious reason for giving the federal government the power to coin money was because their weight can be assured, same with the power to regulate foreign coin. Notes don't have that requirement. This is also why weights and measures is in the same sentence.

As a matter of fact, the Founding Fathers were great ones for paper money.

No sense in arguing this, a simple search of the Elliot debates proves that total hogwash. The continental currency was a failure which saw severe depreciation. Nobody , except those profiting from it, wanted it. They also knew that since the federal government was going to have the power to enforce collection of taxes there would be no need for fiat paper currency. It was generally agreed that the government didn't need nor had that power since they had plenary power to tax and to borrow.

Benjamin Franklin printed up the paper money for a multitude of the colonies and even invented an anti-counterfeiting technique of tossing a natural tree leaf into the printing press to create an uncopyable filigree.

Most were opposed to paper currency...Madison in particular. He believed the constitution forbid it.

But, sir, a majority of the Convention, being wise beyond every event, and being willing to risk any political evil rather than admit the idea of a paper emission in any possible case, refused to trust this authority to a government to which they were lavishing the most unlimited powers of taxation, and to the mercy of which they were willing blindly to trust the liberty and property of the citizens of every state in the Union; and they erased that clause from the system.

- Luther Martin 1787
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... linkText=1

[Quixote]

Most were opposed to paper currency...Madison in particular. He believed the constitution forbid it.

But Hamilton loved it. In his 12/14/1790report to Congress proposing the establishment of a public bank he lists paper money as the first of the principal advantages of such a bank.

The following are among the principal advantages of a Bank:
First. The augmentation of the active or productive capital of a country. Gold and silver., when they are employed merely as the instruments of exchange and alienation. have been not improperly denominated dead stock; but when deposited in banks, to become the basis of a paper circulation, which takes their character and place, as the signs or representatives of vaIue, they then acquire life, or, in other words, an active and productive quality.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

But Hamilton loved it. In his 12/14/1790report to Congress proposing the establishment of a public bank he lists paper money as the first of the principal advantages of such a bank.

Silly Quixote, don't cha know that we should disregard all the Founders that don't agree with our positions. Besides where is Hamilton's Long Form Certificate of Live Birth?

[Quixote]

Silly Quixote, don't cha know that we should disregard all the Founders that don't agree with our positions. Besides where is Hamilton's Long Form Certificate of Live Birth?

Probably at the Alexander Hamilton Museum in his birthplace, Charlestown, Nevis.