twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Never ever argued that sir. All I said was Code is relevant now despite any court case.
Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
Never ever argued that sir. All I said was Code is relevant now despite any court case.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Show me how what I quoted cannot stand on it's own legal person.
You worked for legislature and you need a quote from the real Constitution not your bigot version that mentions to facilitate slavery and FRN's are lawful money? Sure thing chief.
Everything in the Constitution is already lawful lets just get that clear right now. Proper pronouns are capitalized that is proper English form. Constitution is the authorization for all 3 branches of Government and no 1 single branch can change it.
"Highest law of the land" ringing any bells?
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
"To borrow money on the credit of the United States":
remember Hamilton's silly shit? Why is money not a proper noun here?
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, "
Fuckin wow look a proper noun.
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
Whoa my mind is being blown man that says Money supports lawful Armies wonder what money can do?
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."
Appropriations have been made to trade treasuries for Fed notes no??? Statement and account can be found right now.
"No State shall .............coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts"
Wow lawful Money and proper noun Tender in the same sentence what a coincidence.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
That would be the Commercial value you asked for since off Ebay you would be trading lawful money for commercial paper legal tender Fed notes.
Lawful value is face obviously because they are legal tender also.
Edit:
Guess what else has these properties tokeprep?
A silver eagle. 20 bucks commercial and 1 buck legal tender.
20 credits of money and 1 dollar Money.
Tell us all what real value is please Mr. Bernanke.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
No fucking way you looked all that over in a day nice try turbo. Be gone with you until you are done with your due diligence.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
I have looked at your case and am unable to confirm your theory of this, since I can read and all.
Waffles!
Rubber bands!!
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
All I have argued is the Code is the Code despite any cases you care to cite.
Rolling Papers!
Banannas!!
Not in dispute.
I never said congress defined Federal Reserve Notes as lawful money and I never said the statute defined them as such. When United States Notes were issued, the power of the federal government to issue fiat currency was in question. The supreme court case, Juilliard, says that the federal government can indeed establish a fiat currency and make it lawful money. When Federal Reserve Notes were introduced under the Federal Reserve Act, they were not fiat currency and were redeemable in lawful money. When congress severed the precious metal ties and made all United States currency equal to its dollar face value, the distinction broke down because all United States currency was now fiat currency. The redemption provision remained in the statute even though there was no redemption in precious metals available, giving rise to the idea that Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money and must be redeemable for something else that is lawful money. Alas, the treasury has nothing but Federal Reserve Notes to give you.
You need not take my word for it. You have a slew of court cases saying that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money and that arguments otherwise are without merit, and you have a case upholding Federal Reserve Notes for Federal Reserve Notes in satisfaction of the redemption provision.
"Really that's not how it works? Are you pretending I don't know what the Statutes at Large are and where to find them at the Repository? We know the Code is an ongoing process to make current and easily referencable, the stautes from the Statutes at Large that would be necessary for current applications. Yet your claim is simply that the ones I reference have been allowed to let slide or are a result of poor housekeeping.
The Code would have to be updated to support your theory court cases....as in the ones you are inaccurately citing.... could change or otherwise render it useless now would'n it? You have not claimed Milam and Julliard basically render parts of the code effectively irrelevant?
Sure you have. You have told me 12usc411 and 31usc5115 are useless because of the wording of Milam. You say 31usc5115 means nothing to this issue since Milam doesn't mention it.
You have claimed the US code is not up to date in this thread."
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Perhaps I do not understand how you are using or assigning "purpose" here. Since I'm not sure, can i impose on you to explain? cn
I cannot believe you just made this argument, because the official transcript from the National Archives is the original text and it capitalizes "money" every single time it appears in the constitution. I decided to double check, so I downloaded the high resolution image of the text myself, and sure enough, "money" is capitalized in Section 8.
So here's my question for you: where did you get your text that didn't capitalize "money" in Section 8?
That would be the Commercial value you asked for since off Ebay you would be trading lawful money for commercial paper legal tender Fed notes.
Lawful value is face obviously because they are legal tender also.
Edit:
Guess what else has these properties tokeprep?
A silver eagle. 20 bucks commercial and 1 buck legal tender.
20 credits of money and 1 dollar Money.
Tell us all what real value is please Mr. Bernanke.
Ok, you just acknowledged my point that it's not currency value, I think?
Likewise with the silver eagle. It didn't "hold its value"--the value of the metal rose because industrial demand for silver skyrocketed.
I had actually looked it over when I mentioned a long time ago in this thread that I had been reviewing tax protestor arguments that repeated a lot of the same claims you were throwing. That guy came up constantly; in fact, I think I visited the forum he runs himself, and I looked at a lot of the posts.
Conclusion: no one accomplished anything and no one even claimed to accomplish anything. The people who were using this argument and variations of it that have been developed over the past decade to try and stop paying taxes got slapped with $5,000 frivolous tax protest penalties.
Evidently you cannot, since you claim the court's decision was based on an argument the defendant never made. You're the one calling waffles and rubber bands because apparently you don't understand how court opinions work.
See, you have that part down just fine. The code is the code; the code says what the code says; the code is the law. All true. But we do not live in a civil law system; in our constitutional system, the courts are empowered to interpret the law and those court decisions have precedential effect--they are also the law, along with the statutes, unless and until congress expresses a contrary intent.
In order to correctly understand and interpret the law, the code alone is insufficient because it reflects only the words of congress. Court decisions interpreting the code are just as authoritative and relevant as the code itself, which is why lawyers spend billions of dollars to access versions of the code that contain both things.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Like the big bang expanding then contracting.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Ya know I wanna say it was Princeton but really not sure. You gotta know that only furthers the argument. Lawful document that establishes government capital Money every time even better.
Hamilton's definition of money of account still stands.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Your whole basis for silver rising is industrial demand now?
I just acknowledged the red ink notes are worth way more in commercial paper on the open market then they are for taxes because they are legal tender just as a silver eagle is.
This is a true reflection of what all used to be 1:1:1.......one is different now. Just like 100 years ago silver was less than face it was all still 1:1:1 because they are all legal tender for face. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar in payment of taxes only.
Of the three....the one that is only legal tender and not lawful money, has been allowed to expand and lose value....that would be the FRN's
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
There is no contraction... Hello ENTROPY.
S = k ln(Ω
No contraction? What about fractal geometry focusing inward?
It furthers the argument? You literally just argued that the credit borrowing power was obviously intended to be inferior to the coinage and other powers because of capitalization! Now it's furthering your argument!?
Hamilton's definition of money was not the law. As the note you quoted the Hamilton stuff from says, "money" and "money of account" are not legally distinct in federal law. They say Hamilton's definition is irrelevant, not me!