cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Imo it helps ... sometimes responses are delayed or original posts edited. Fwiw. cn
Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Don't you think the bills of credit (which we both agree amounts to paper money) were supposed to be reserved for emergencies and the Constitution clearly states what will be used in the day to day economy?
If that were the case, that's what the constitution would say. And once again, if the constitution said what you claim it "clearly states," you'd be quoting it instead of just asserting it.
What about it?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
tokeprep said:
twostrokenut said:
post#397 said:
tokeprep in referenct to post 937 said:
Thanks for clearing everything up it's been charming Mr. Legislator sir. Nothing left to do now but sit back and wait and see which currency fairs better, gold and silver; or paper dollars, should be interesting I bet it will be very close for a very long time to come.....
The thing vs. the thing the other thing used to be backed by.......should be a photo finish down to the wire lmao.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Ya bro "clearly states" pun intended you are soooooo slow. States may only issue gold and silver in tender meaning the Federal Gov receives these in taxes and used this to emit bills of credit which everyone knew was very dangerous by now having a propensity to be counterfeited and abused and all.
Government was intended to be by people for people because the people carried the substance of the economy....
Government was intended to be by people for people because the people carried the substance of the economy....
Is quoting yourself supposed to be making your point? Because it doesn't. Your assertions mean nothing. Concluding that the federal government wasn't supposed to use paper currency because the states were forbidden? Senseless. Concluding that it was only to be issued in emergencies? Totally baseless.
The constitution gives the congress the power to specify what money is. The congress has. Period.
Who cares about what states can do? The federal government can do whatever it wants. Indeed, the restrictions on the states that you're referencing from the constitution are derived from the federal government's expansive monetary power. The fact that a power was not given to the states does not mean that it does not reside in the federal government.
People still carry the substance of the economy. It's only in your paranoid fantasy land that they don't.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
You in a medical state?
Does Galveston County Texas pay Social Security?
Does Utah Have specie legal tender?
Does Montana make "illegal" firearms despite the interstate commerce clause interpretation?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
All I'm saying is what you think useless and senseless because it is all etched in stone, literally is hanging by a thread because the interpretations were and are dead wrong.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
only used for emergencies baseless???? You are clueless. The notes you use now are still under the emergency banking act from the great depression.
These questions and the answers aren't going to make your point about what the constitution says. The federal government is very explicitly granted the power to print paper currency.
All you did was assert it. You had zero evidence to support your claim. Thus your claim about emergencies only is indeed baseless.
The legislation underlying the currency has nothing to do with Congress' power to issue such currency under the constitution.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Not arguing that at all sir. Just pointing out it is also free to fall flat on its ass if it abuses it.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Why is that baseless just because you can't source it? Not my problem you are lazy.
Also the underlying legislation has nothing to do with the Constitution is my point exactly so just rewording what I already said, hardly makes a point so why persist in doing it?
Emergency of the Civil War brought in federal paper currency which was fucking unheard of and blasphemous at the time.....because of the way it turned out, it's just fucking wrong to counterfeit on matter now "noble" the cause...emergency act of 1933 solidified private note use as currency which was very controversial at that time what with the big bank run that just happened and all........ABC in this bitch though remember?
Which is totally constitutional. That's the point.
Why would I source it? The text says nothing about emergencies. Nothing. When you say, "Oh, that's just there for emergencies!" I can just as easily say, "That's there so congress can freely print money." If the framers meant to say something about emergencies, they could have said "The federal government shall have the power to issue paper currency in emergencies." But they didn't.
Why would the legislation have something to do with the constitution? The constitution grants the federal government the power to print money--it's the source of the power to make rules, not a list of rules. When congress passes legislation, it merely exercises the power granted to it under the constitution.
As for your historical point: obviously it wasn't blasphemous because the framers left wiggle room instead of explicitly stating that the federal government couldn't print paper currency. They had such wording on the table at the convention.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
The text?
You're right the framers would have, they allowed paper printing federally and didn't define what for, it's just common sense, its a document written for common people, who are supposed to check the spending, by whatever means they choose. It could be checked right now if everyone paid off all their debt, simple as that. Our fault as a people.
Where in the constitution is the federal government specifically granted power to print money for whatever? Indeed bill of credit means must be paid back, everyone knows this but you, somehow you think the fed negates this....difference is people used gold and silver to pay taxes then, not on labor or wages either.....it all hangs on threads of interpretation by the courts that almost didn't happen when it did.
It was totally blasphemous are you kidding? The citizens then wore the full comfort and protection of local municipalities, then city, then county, then state governments to SHIELD them from the Federal Government......wiggle room lmfao as no one was a US citizen then sir they were very much part of their nation-states......comfortable in the fact the Federal Government was granted few and very specific responsibilities and all else rested at local and state level.
The power to print currency isn't specifically granted, but as you pointed out, only states are expressly forbidden from issuing their own paper notes. There's no affirmative or negative statement toward the federal government, which makes the issue an ambiguous one; does expressly forbidding the states to do it mean that the federal government is the entity empowered to do it? Or does the lack of an express grant mean the federal government has no such power? We can debate the "truth" all we want, but the supreme court has been clear for more than 100 years: the federal government has the power. That's that.
A bill of credit never has to be paid back. Never. That's the problem with debt monetization. I'm sorry you still don't understand this, especially since it's exactly what you're arguing against--the government's ability to spend money that never has to be paid back. That's the very fact that makes it evil: debt monetization is pure inflation.
Among those limited responsibilities: money, with the states very expressly corralled in their powers, leaving it mostly in the hands of the federal government. This was done intentionally after the framers lived through the Articles of Confederation, which let states have their own power over money to disastrous consequences.