And after. For decades after; for a century after; for centuries after. The words should have meant freedom for all all along, certainly, and yet they didn't. The use of those words to "faciliate the abolishment" was not an exercise of original intent.
"Note" in the UCC specifically excludes Federal Reserve Notes. Period.
Off the top of my head why not find that statute that allows the Treasury to currently to put us notes into circulation.Which one?
Show it then I would have no problem discussing it or admitting I was wrong about it. I never recall citing the UCC definition of note including them or excluding them. But the UCC is not the issuing authority for them so what's the point?
Since I point out his bullshit to the same degree that I point out other bullshit, that wouldn't make much sense.
I want the one I asked for.
Me neither I merely agree or disagree to different extents. Only reason I carried it this long was to learn what "others in this forum have learned when they asserted such" or whatever to that effect. I believe free markets were established here originally and accomplished what you think the Fed has. I think the framers knew to keep the intrinsic money in The Peoples hands cause The People know what's best for The People.
Never said it didn't exist, only that your interpretation of that fact was totally wrong.
Never called that irrelevant either.
Anything presently in circulation that's eligible for redemption is part of the public debt until it's redeemed.
UCC 3-102: "This Article applies to negotiable instruments. It does not apply to money..." Also: "Regulations of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and operating circulars of the Federal Reserve Banks supersede any inconsistent provision of this Article to the extent of the inconsistency."
You didn't quote an executive order, you quoted a speech. Do you not know the difference?
This is laughable. Slavery existed in this country under that constitution until the 1860s. Constitutional amendments were passed expressly for the purpose of ensuring rights for both slaves and women. Why are they amending the constitution if it already provided those rights?
Ah so FRN's aren't able to be redeemed according to you so they are not to be used to pay the public debt? How will the public pay it then you think they will pay it in gold?
So you would be comfortable with Galen performing your heart surgery then, based on his ancient knowledge? You would prefer Galen over a modern surgeon with knowledge of modern medicine? Interesting.
The economy isn't a zero sum game. When you incentivize productive activities, you generate additional wealth. When you finance building or growing or production with fractional reserve money, you literally are financing something from nothing, by your own description of how it works. Your own position is that this would not be possible in an Austrian system.
So your contention is that a FRN is a non-negotiable instrument?
No, no, you aren't following the wording in your own post. You referred to old currency redemption in the last part, not Federal Reserve Note redemption. You can redeem Federal Reserve Notes for an equivalent value of Federal Reserve Notes. Never said otherwise. Likewise, Federal Reserve Notes can be used to pay the public debt. Never said otherwise.
Of course I do I actually read it.... I am pretty sure it was a personal letter too numbnuts. The EO post was just to show you were wrong about your statement that the Prez cannot make law without Congress....it was just factually wrong.
UCC Article 3 explicitly excludes money from being a negotiable instrument. Period. So yes, absolutely, Federal Reserve Notes aren't negotiable instruments. By definition they aren't, and definitions are the most important thing, remember?
The statement you just made is what's factually wrong. The president can only issue executive orders based on executive authority granted either by the constitution or by legislation passed by congress. The president can not unilaterally make law as he pleases.