The documentary, Fiat Empire, makes the claim:
“When you suggest to people that their money should be gold or silver coin, as it says in the Constitution, they sometimes stare at you with a blank expression, or make the most extraordinary comments.“
In some cases, those responses are justified, since the Constitution doesn’t say money should be gold or silver coin.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power “To coin Money,” but nowhere is the word “money” defined in the Constitution.
The Coinage Act of 1792 provided for the coining of copper, in addition to gold and silver, and made those coins lawful tender, showing that something other than gold and silver were coined as money by Congress during the era of the Founding Fathers.
Some cite Article I, Section 10 to claim the Constitution says money should be gold or silver coin.
“[No State shall] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;“
But that is a restriction on the individual States of what they can make legal tender, and not a requirement that they make gold and silver coin legal tender. In the same section is the restriction which prohibits the States from coining money, so the only money that can be coined by government is by Congress, and includes more than just gold and silver.
For more misconceptions about gold and silver in the Constitution, please read The Constitution doesn’t insist on a gold or silver-backed currency.
“Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power “To coin Money,”
” but nowhere is the word “money” defined in the Constitution.”
Nonsense!!!!!
Read what it says. The definition of money is right before your eyes!!
“To coin Money” COIN = a piece of metal stamped and issued by the authority of a government for use as money.
Money is Precious Metals -not limited to Gold or Silver but because of the physical characteristics of Gold and silver, limited supply, requiring sweat equity to dig up, easily divisible, doesn’t rust, etc, Silver and Gold made the most sense.
So by default, everything that is not metal can not be money! It’s not ambiguous at all. It’s as clear as can be.
Having said that, I am a big fan of Ron Paul but Ron Paul’s promotion of a Gold standard is not a constitutional position. A Gold standard is another racket.
The solution to the economic problems is to restore INTEREST FREE money and to end the private monopoly of money creation by banks. The solution is not to create a Gold Standard controlled by the same cabal who controls the fiat system.
“Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power “To coin Money,”
” but nowhere is the word “money” defined in the Constitution.”
Nonsense!!!!!
Read the what it says. The definition of money is right before your eyes!!
“To coin Money” COIN = a piece of metal stamped and issued by the authority of a government for use as money.
Money is Precious Metals -not limited to Gold or Silver but because of the physical characteristics of Gold and silver, limited supply, requiring sweat equity to dig up, easily divisible, doesn’t rust, etc, Silver and Gold made the most sense.
So be default, everything that is not metal can not be money! It’s not ambiguous at all. It’s as clear as can be.
Having said that, I am a big fan of Ron Paul but Ron Paul’s promotion of a Gold standard is not a constitutional position. A Gold standard is another racket.
The solution to the economic problems is to restore INTEREST FREE money and to end the private monopoly of money creation by banks. The solution is not to create a Gold Standard controlled by the same cabal who controls the fiat system.
By far the best money/currency argument I’ve ever heard/read. But, who won??? (I’m leaning toward Freddie Flint)
[...] constitution says we should have Gold (and/or Silver) as currency. But it doesn’t, it says we may have Gold as currency. But other units are also [...]
Reblogged this on Recovering Austrians and commented:
Ron Paul is not telling the Truth when saying the Constitution forces specie as legal tender.
It is clear that states have the power to mint using gold and silver.
It also makes not distinction as to what the congress must use for it’s coin. It only says that the congress has the power to “coin money”.
So if the Feds make iron coins,,,,,,,,, I will use the gold issued by the states which would have the same value all over the world. Reason would dictate that it would be pointless for the congress to use anything other then gold or silver. Perhaps the honorable Maxine Waters could enlighten us all.
Larry,
I”t also makes no distinction as to what the congress must use for it’s coin. It only says that the congress has the power to “coin money”
The distinction is that money has to be metal.The word Coin means a piece of metal stamped by a government authority to be used as money. If it’s not metal, it’s not money.
So while the Federal Government can use other metals, Gold and Silver’s physical characteristics make them obvious choices over other more
abundant Metals.
This idea that there exists ambiguity over what the constitution says is money is ridicules.
[...] 1) The U.S. Constitution doesn’t say money should be gold or silver coin [...]
Perhaps this will clear the fog:
“Legal Tender
Relying on this clause, which applies only to the States and not to the Federal Government,1809 the Supreme Court has held that where the marshal of a state court received state bank notes in payment and discharge of an execution, the creditor was entitled to demand payment in gold or silver.1810 Since, however, there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting a bank depositor from consenting when he draws a check that payment may be made by draft, a state law providing that checks drawn on local banks should, at the option of the bank, be payable in exchange drafts was held valid.1811″
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag93_user.html
The only thing that will clear the fog is the banking industry being shut down.
[...] 5) The U.S. Constitution doesn’t say money should be gold or silver coin [...]
The federal government can not allow the states to make anything other gold and silver coin a payment in debt without an Amendement saying so. Granted the federal govenment can use whatever they want, but for that whatever to be actually usable within state finanaces, it would have to be converted to gold and silver coin. This is where the importance of gold backed currency comes in. The constitution doesn’t directly state “gold backed currency” but makes anything other absolutely worthless within state finances.
Though the Constitution does not say that money must be gold and silver coin, the Constitution does have the word “dollar” in it. Two places. A dollar, in the Constitution of the United States, is a Spanish Milled Dollar coin, or its equivalent, in coin form, containing 371.25 grains of fine silver.
In his work, What is the Dollar in the United States (online), its author, Dan Goodman, shows that the Continental Congress established the dollar, as a coin, containing containing 375.64 grains of fine silver, equivalent to the then current Spanish Milled Dollar coin. The United States Congress completed the work of the Continental Congress by establishing a mint to coin the dollar (and parts thereof). However, the dollar was defined to be a coin, containing 371.25 grains of fine silver, equivalent to the then current Spanish Milled Dollar coin. The reason for the change in the number of grains of fine silver, was, according to Alexander Hamilton, in his report of the establishment of a Mint (Jaunuary 28 1791), that “[t]he dollar originally contemplated in the money transactions of this country, by successive diminutions of its weight and fineness (by the country of Spain), has sustained a depreciation of five per cent. . . . This, nevertheless, is the condition of one which, having no coins of its own, adopts with implicit confidence those of other countries.”
So, though money under the Constitution may not include gold or silver coin, a dollar, however, is under the Constitution a silver coin containing 371.25 grains of fine silver. And since debts are generally denominated in terms of dollars, then only silver coin (and maybe gold coin) can be tender in payment of the debt.
On the issue of legal tender:
The United States cannot make its obligations a legal tender in payment of private debts. In the case of Julliard v. Greenman, the United States Supreme Court held that: 1) Congress had the power to make its obligations a legal tender in the payment of private debts, and 2) that this power was an implied power under the Constitution based on the case of McCulloch v. State of Maryland. The Court determined that this implied power of making the obligations of the United States a legal tender in payment of private debts was a means (incident) to the power (expressly) given to Congress to borrow money on the credit of the United States.
However, the case of McCulloch v. State of Maryland was wrongly decided. The concept of implied powers does not exist in the Constitution. In fact, such a concept, if a doctrine would be in conflict with the doctrine that the Congress is a government of enumerated powers. As such, Congress does not have the power to make its obligations a legal tender in payment of debts, since the concept of implied powers does not exist in the Constitution. Since the power is not granted (expressly) to Congress, the power to make its obligations a legal tender in payment of private debts is not given to Congress under the Constitution of the United States. This is shown in the work, “The United States government does not have the power to make its obligations a legal tender” (online) by Dan Goodman.
I agree that the dollar referenced in the Constitution is the Spanish Milled Dollar coin you mention. However, since the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate the value of coined money, it can change the definition of a dollar to be any weight, size and shape of metal that it wants.
I also agree that McCulloch v. Maryland was wrongly decided, though its decision should be instructive to “strict constructionists” and “originalists,” since it wasn’t some split decision, but was a unanimous decision in the era of the Founding Fathers.
It followed up on George Washington’s signing of the 1792 Coinage Act which made gold, silver and bronze coins lawful tender across the U.S., showing that tighter and more explicit restrictive language is required in the Constitution to prevent the claim of Congress having implicit powers.
The constitution is clear that the states cannot make anything but gold and silver coin a payment of debt. Forced actions of the state for anyone to pay a debt in anything but gold or silver coin is prohibited. The states cannot force payments in federal reserve notes, but they do it all the time. The people can change this with juries anytime they want. The constitution also says that any state or federal law, or any ruling by any judge that contradicts the constitution is not withstanding. Pretty clear to me.
I am in agreement with all your points.
Keep in mind that a prohibition against the States making anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts isn’t a requirement that they make gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts — they can have no legal tender laws whatsoever.
It’s not so much the States forcing payments in Federal Reserve Notes, if at all. It’s the federal government doing so, with its claim to having the constitutional authority to enact legal tender laws, which goes back to George Washington signing the 1792 Coinage Act, which declared that gold, silver and copper coins struck by the U.S. Mint are lawful tender across the country.
When Lincoln made United States Notes legal tender, he was relying on a precedent set by George Washington for Congress having the power to declare currency legal tender.
[...] my other articles on what the Constitution really says about money and currency, see The U.S. Constitution doesn’t say money should be gold or silver coin, and The Constitution doesn’t insist on a gold or silver-backed currency. Share [...]
Right on Frederick…..
Seems clear to me as well….”No state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts”
Paper notes are to be backed by gold and silver. If not…its just a piece of paper.
Shall and must are two different things. Shall means to have permission to do something, while must is a requirement.
States are not operating unconstitutionally by not having legal tender laws.
Only if they do have legal tender laws are they required to make gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts — not only gold, and not only silver, but both.
Note, however, how it says debts, and not all transactions. Since States are only prohibited from creating paper currency, and reserve all powers that aren’t specifically restricted to them, they also would be able to make paper currency valid for all other transactions not involving payment of debts.
Official U.S. government document showing that there is a difference between “shall” and “must.”
http://www.plainlanguage.gov/howto/wordsuggestions/shallmust.cfm
“In just about every jurisdiction, courts have held that “shall” can mean not just “must” and “may”, but also “will” and “is”.”
Question, oh High and Mighty Constitutional Scholar: If the states are prohibited from using anything but gold and silver to settle debts, then isn’t the Federal Reserve Act forcing states to violate the Constitution by requiring these bills of credit legal tender for ALL debts? Even if you don’t consider paper fiat currency bills of credit, the very fact that states must accept paper, when they are prohibited by the Constitution from accepting anything but gold or silver makes the Federal Reserve Act unconstitutional on its face. Oh, please correct this simpleton with your superior constitutional knowledge, oh wise one!
No, the States are prohibited from making anything but gold and silver legal tender in payment of debts within their respective jurisdictions.
Whether the States allow the federal government to make their state residents accept unconstitutional Federal Reserve Notes as legal tender is up to them.
Many critics of “fiat money” fail to distinguish between privately issued debt and interest-bearing fiat money, and publicly issued debt-free and interest-free fiat money.
Some commentators, in criticizing Lincoln for having no constitutional warrant for making federally issued currency legal tender, either aren’t aware of, or conveniently omit, the fact that George Washington signed the Coinage Act of 1792, which made gold coins, silver coins and even bronze coins, lawful tender in payment of debts all across the nation.
Their criticism of Lincoln for making federally issued paper currency legal tender is quite loud, while their silence on Washington doing so with gold and silver is deafening in its silence.
Again: If the states “are prohibited from making anything but gold and silver legal tender in payment of debts within their respective jurisdictions,” that prohibition is found in the Constitution. And if the federal government, which is also supposed to obey the Constitution, then forces the states to use anything other than the Constitutionally-allowed gold and silver as legal tender, it is forcing the states to violate the Constitution. As the Constitution is *supposed* to be the Supreme Law of the Land, any act of Congress, Executive order, or any other regulation or decree which violates the Constitution is not only unconstitutional, it is null and void.
If the states want to “allow the federal government to make their state residents accept unconstitutional Federal Reserve Notes” is NOT “up to them.” It is illegal.
Unconstitutional “laws” don’t automatically become constitutional just because the federal and state governments allow them to be enforced.
The Coinage Act is not a good analogy. George Washington was performing his constitutional duty as President when he *signed* the Coinage Act, which was passed by Congress according to their Constitutional duty to coin money and regulate the value thereof. The bronze coins were valued according to their relative value compared to silver and gold. If paper currency — note I didn’t say “money” — were backed by silver or gold, it would just be a more convenient way to carry money around. When it is backed by nothing but the government’s promise to pay the private bank issuing the currency at interest, that is an entirely different thing.
Fiat currency is unconstitutional, there is no getting around that. You may prefer fiat currency. The government may prefer it. Everyone on the face of the Earth may prefer it, but that doesn’t make it constitutional. And the fact that it is issued by a private corporation just underlines the illegality of the whole mess. If you want it to be constitutional so badly, why not campaign for an amendment instead of trying to deceive people into believing it’s constitutional? I suspect the reason no advocate for fiat currency would try that is that deep down they know they’d be tarred and feathered if the People ever woke up to the scam the fiat worshipers advocate. I suspect it’s also why articles like the one above are written — to give a veneer of scholarship and legality to keep people from investigating for themselves the scam that has been perpetrated against them.
By saying it is up to the States, I specifically mean with regard to how they respond to unconstitutional actions. Any unconstitutional action is null and void, but what States and people actually do about it in practice is another matter.
No, fiat currency is not unconstitutional in all cases. First of all, I don’t accept the definition of fiat currency meaning something not backed by gold or silver, since fiat means let it be done, and on that basis, gold and silver can also be fiat currencies, with a fiat value over and above its market value, as was defined by law with the Coinage Act of 1792.
But even going with the change in definition of fiat that banksters love, since they fail to distinguish between debt and interest-based fiat currency and debt-free and interest-free fiat currency, paper fiat currency is constitutional in at least one way, as I have outlined in my response to “End the Fed.” above.
Namely, paper currency not created by the States which is made legal for transactions not involving the payment of debts. And certainly the adoption by the free market of fiat paper currency is constitutional.
I have more to say about your other points, but it’s best to hash all these points out over the course of more, shorter posts.
[...] my other writings about a constitutional monetary system, see The U.S. Constitution doesn’t say money should be gold or silver coin, and The Constitution doesn’t insist on a gold or silver-backed currency. Share [...]
Frederick Niche you are wrong. Currency is paper. Money is gold and silver. Copper and nickel somewhat. Steel for one year only. Zinc since 1959.
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”
This quite clearly states that States shall not create any fake form of currency (ie ‘money’ or bills of credit) and should only use gold or silver coins as tender.
You’re clearly confused between currency and money. Gold and silver are the only CURRENCY to be used.