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.GSE wrote: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.
btw, try looking up the word "coin" and then come back to me.
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.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.Not printed money and that is only in relation to states. There is nothing forbidding citizen's from coining or printing.
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?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.
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?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.
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.the power to coin money and the power to tax are two separate constitutional issues.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.
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.See above.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?
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?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.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?
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.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.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.