It's not necessarily a penalty.
Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
The UCC is not applicable to money. Federal Reserve Notes are money. Period.
The fact that you bizarrely think the quotation marks in Milam--rather than the words--indicate otherwise is absurd. You're relying on a non-existent distinction.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
You brought up slavery as a red herring to the argument at hand which was an economical one. I was referencing the Constitution in a monetary sense because we were talking about US Notes and US code and UCC commercial law which all have to do with the economy and my explaining to you how wrong you are that no debt is created by having elastic currency that can be fractionally lent.
Then you went on to fail at proving the very thing you claim in this statement......original intent being meaningless......then went on to show an example of how you thought it was meaningful as in the 2nd amendment... You provided no law or Constitutional provision for slavery keeping in mind we already established the 3/5ths clause was there to keep slave owners from having it both ways.
Keeping in mind that you are the one that steered this thread to slavery, then to gay rights, which imho have really nothing to do with what we were talking about especially in the economic sense......the others on here have steered towards it with chat of tax breaks and 401k's and what not but for you it was just a red herring period.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Keep repeating that to yourself and eventually in the world of contracts I am sure it will be true by your will alone.
You are basing this statement on something I already proved was false. You claimed the UCC specifically excluded FRN's from the "negotiable instrument" definition when it did not. You are still assuming FRN's enjoy lawful money or even just money status, they do not. They are only legal tender and this is the very reason for the Edit: Federal Reserve Act.
I ran some numbers through a federal income tax calculator to provide an example of income tax advantage for you. Assume we have two people, one who earns $50,000 per year and one who earns $30,000 per year. Filing as single people, the total tax due is $6,093 + $2,603 = $8,696. If our couple files jointly as a married couple, their tax bill on the same incomes is $8,205.
Conclusion: if you're in a relationship with a same sex partner at these income levels and unable to get married, the government is legally entitled to take an extra $500 from you versus a similarly situated straight couple that can get married.
At the federal level, there is no spousal privilege for same sex couples because of the Defense of Marriage Act. At the state level, spousal privilege is generally based solely on state-sanctioned marriage, so there is none in states without gay marriage. A contract will not get you spousal privilege; spousal privilege is purposely generally only obtainable by marriage because they don't want people signing contracts and claiming they were married as a way of avoiding giving criminal testimony.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
eh I've got one left in me let me point out you error yet again in understanding the difference in legal and lawful......
since there is no dispute in what they were referencing then by me or you, in Juiliard,
there is absolutely no dispute in what they were referencing later in Milam and now in the present day.........
since....
in fact.....
what they referenced then is still in existence now, yes right now................
in 31usc5115
and that is the absolute only lawful paper money congress ever authorized as lawful money and it happened during the Civil War....
Federal Reserve notes were, in fact, given only Legal Tender status by Congress.
No court decision says otherwise because they must uphold what was written by Congress...which is why you will find no court case that says "Federal Reserve Notes are Lawful Money of the United States" in a direct, simple quote.
Edit: so it was a double quote like this:
Milam quoting Juiliard said:
Spousal privilege isn't a constitutional right.
What stops straight people from doing exactly the same thing with their opposite sex friends!?
Since I actually know straight people who got married solely for the purpose of getting some military benefit for it, I find this especially repugnant.
The fuck? Because single straight people are all marrying each other for the tax benefits too?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
I thought spousal privilege legislation had it's basis in the right not to testify against one's self. Which would make it a right, not a privilege. If no then maybe..........
You could not simply refuse to testify against your spouse because it would incriminate yourself, thereby enforcing in good faith that is your spouse?
I brought up slavery solely to make a point about original intent. You're the one who seems to have gotten lost on it, because you've been trying to argue that slavery wasn't originally intended, which is pure silliness on your part, but you've insisted anyway.
I already told you that I don't care about what the words say. What the words say is meaningless. Totally meaningless. All that matters if what the words meant. The fact that slavery existed in this country for almost 100 years after the constitution was enacted necessarily dispels any suggestion that the words were meant to bring the blessing of liberty to all. And yet again, even in 1776 and in the 1780s people were pointing out of the irony of the institution of slavery standing against the lofty language of the constitution. The point is that rights and liberty for all was not the original intent of the slave-owning framers; since the slaves states never would have ratified the constitution unless it permitted slavery, any argument you want to make about original intent is total lunacy.
`
I certainly had no intention of steering this thread toward gay rights. I wrote one post in response to someone else and came back to find half a dozen pages of posts--that's not my doing.
According to the Federal Reserve page you quoted and linked to, United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes are both "lawful money." According to Milam, Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money. You did not disprove anything--you presumed non-existent meaning from quotation marks that had zero other support.
Definitions are the important thing, though, right? This is how the word "money" is defined in Article 3:
"(24) "Money" means a medium of exchange currently authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government. The term includes a monetary unit of account established by an intergovernmental organization or by agreement between two or more countries."
Federal Reserve Notes are certainly a medium of exchange authorized by the United States government. Thus they are money under the UCC.
Show me in the Milam opinion where the court references 31 USC 5115. Oh right, they don't. You're throwing in their mouths.
This is what the court says: "The power so precisely described in Juilliard has been delegated to the Federal Reserve System under the provisions of 12 U.S.C. § 411." We agree that the power described in Juilliard is the power to establish a national currency and make it lawful money, correct? 12 USC 411 is the code section that authorizes the Fed to issue Federal Reserve Notes. The Milam court, in the text I just quoted, says that the power described in Juilliard--to establish a national currency and make it lawful money--has been delegated to the Fed under 12 USC 411.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Oh so it's complete lunacy to sow a seed of freedom for all, nice stance duly noted.
The fact slavery still existed years later only proves how en-grained slavery was in society not only here but the world over.....as evidenced by Mauritania just passing legislation in 2007 making it illegal to own people as property....
Slavery is thousands and thousands of years old, Constitution is slightly younger. People pointing out the irony was original intent, I stand by that, not by all involved I never debated that.....but by the good ones, and they were successful as evidenced by the wording of the document.
The Constitution was meant by most and successfully worded to provide freedom in this Republic. Not instantaneously.
Your cry that they could have just done it, that is, ended slavery and made everyone free denies they actually managed to put this literally in the text of the highest law of the land which facilitated all the irony arguments you speak of.
Spousal privilege developed out of the common law of evidence in the United Kingdom. It was given universal validity in the United States by the supreme court only in the 20th century, and not on constitutional grounds.
The blood and sweat and suffering of tens of millions of people throughout American history sowed that seed of freedom for all, not the original intent of the framers, which governments and courts spent more then a century citing as evidence that some people were not intended to enjoy freedom or equality. Your giving credit to the framers is offensive to everyone who fought to make the constitution universally applicable to all.
Actually, for the issues I specifically raised, the existing text of the constitution was irrelevant. Constitutional amendments are what gave slaves their freedom and women the right to vote. In amending our constitution, we necessarily acknowledge that is flawed and that it must be amended in order to carry the interpretation that we want. Original intent goes out the window because amendments express our conscious choice to make changes to the present meaning of the text.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Show the Fed's issuing authority to issue lawful money then.
I showed you the Issuing Authority for Fed Notes and US notes. If "the power" you are referencing was handed to the Fed it certainly is not in the Federal Reserve Act.
Factually "the power" still must adhere to 12usc411 that plainly says FRN's may be redeemed in Lawful Money.
The power in reference was to make lawful paper money by Congress, which was already done and established.
- The power so precisely described in Juilliard has been delegated to the Federal Reserve System under the provisions of 12 U.S.C. § 411. Appellant's challenge to the validity of this legislation is meritless.
The power delegated was for the Fed to redeem in lawful money according to its definition by Congress "under the provisions of 12usc411" notice that had to be referenced because court cannot simply ignore it. It is law that FRN's are not lawful money only Legal Tender....says it right on the note even if you choose not to read it.
Court can't make a FRN say "lawful money for all debts public and private" neither can you despite your hissy fits asserting the opposite.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
By this logic rights that exist in the 1st 10 amendments are not simply basic rights but were the only rights. The right to own a gun existed before the 2nd guaranteed and specified it. The right of people to not be owned was only specified by the 13th once and for all.
12 USC 411: "Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized."
According to the statute, Federal Reserve Notes are redeemable in lawful money, yes. Since they are lawful money, a tender of Federal Reserve Notes for Federal Reserve Notes, as happened in Milam, satisfies the statute.
The provision for redemption is a historical artifact. That's what you cannot seem to comprehend. The courts have given it formal effect because congress has never repealed it, but that doesn't mean it's substantively meaningful. Your whole argument is founded on the idea that it must be substantively meaningful because it's still there.
Reading comprehension again. You just claimed this sentence says the power delegated to the Fed is that to redeem in lawful money. That makes no sense based on the sentence you quoted. That sentence says "the power so precisely described in Juilliard," and that case says nothing about redemption; the statute in question didn't exist when it was decided. Thus "the power" cannot possibly man the "power...to redeem in lawful money," as you just said.The Milam court cites 12 USC 411 because it is the authorizing statute for Federal Reserve Notes. The delegated power is very obviously the power to issue a national currency and make it lawful money.