Not Just ANother Example Of Unconstitutional Expansion Of The TSA

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It has been considered "Legal" because it's never been contested but it's never been lawful, it's still on the books! no amendment has ever been made, anything can be made "legal" if some guy writes it on paper and it's signed by some other authority figure but that doesnt make it lawful.

It has been contested. Constitutional law if formed when something is contested on constitutional grounds, and it makes its way through the court system, usually up to the level of the Supreme Court. Once the Supreme Court has decided, then then that's it, unless there's a constitutional amendment, or the Supreme Court can be persuaded to revisit it. The constitutional legality of paper money was settled in a series of Supreme Court cases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Tender_Cases

The Legal Tender Cases were a series of United States Supreme Court cases in the latter part of the nineteenth century that affirmed the constitutionality of paper money. In the 1870 case of Hepburn v. Griswold, the Court had held that legal tender in the form of paper money violated the United States Constitution. The Legal Tender Cases reversed Hepburn, beginning with Knox v. Lee and Parker v. Davis in 1871,[1] and then Juilliard v. Greenman in 1884.[2]
Content from External Source
The most significant being the last,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juilliard_v._Greenman
Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884), was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which issuance of greenbacks as legal tender was challenged in peacetime. The Legal Tender Acts of 1862 and 1863 were upheld.Julliard sold and delivered 100 bales of cotton to Greenman for $5,122.90. Greenman tendered $5,100 in United States legal tender notes and the rest in coin, but Julliard would not accept the U.S. notes. The tendered notes were originally issued under an act of Congress passed on February 25, 1862 and March 3, 1863, during the Civil War. An act of May 31, 1878 provided to “forbid the further retirement of United States legal tender notes”.

In an 8–1 decision, resting largely on prior court cases, the power "of making the notes of the United States a legal tender in payment of private debts" was interpreted as "included in the power to borrow money and to provide a national currency".

Justice Field dissented, challenging the court's interpretation of the terms to "borrow" and "coin" money.

He explained that the term to borrow money was well settled in other instruments such as municipal and corporate bonds, and private contracts. Allowing the government to make their notes legal tender would interfere with third-party contractual obligations as now third parties would be compelled by law to accept notes instead of coin. A private corporate bond could certainly not require an amusement park to accept the bond in exchange for entry. To find that the term to borrow money as written in the constitution allows interference in third-party contracts would certainly improve the value of the note, but it would deviate from the meaning of the term "to borrow money".

The meaning of the terms ‘to coin money’ is not at all doubtful. “It is to mould metallic substances into forms convenient for circulation and to stamp them with the impress of the government.” In the clause authorizing congress ‘to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States’, a distinction is clearly made between debt and coin.

Justice Field also cited many quotes by the founders against paper money, including the following by James Madison: "The pretext for paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts, was cut off."
Content from External Source
You may agree with Justice Field, but for all intents and purposes, a 8:1 supreme court decision, and subsequent usage, means the matter is settled short of a constitutional amendment.
 

solrey

Senior Member.
This is like the anti 2a left who tell me the 2nd amendment only applies to government recognized State Militia.

I'm not aware of anyone who is opposed to the second amendment as it's written. It's the interpretation by the courts under heavy influence by the arms industry who has interpreted "A well regulated militia being necessary to security of a free state..." to mean any yahoo, with zero training but enough money to buy a gun, can go anywhere in public packin' heat that a lot of people are opposed to, including some republicans I know.

I mean, is this guy part of a "well regulated militia" necessary to keep his state free?

Nevada man shifts in his theater seat, accidentally shoots himself

You keep bringing your hate for any political ideology that doesn't match yours into the discussion like a religion...you got issues.
 

cheeple

Member
It has been contested. Constitutional law if formed when something is contested on constitutional grounds, and it makes its way through the court system, usually up to the level of the Supreme Court. Once the Supreme Court has decided, then then that's it, unless there's a constitutional amendment, or the Supreme Court can be persuaded to revisit it. The constitutional legality of paper money was settled in a series of Supreme Court cases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Tender_Cases

The Legal Tender Cases were a series of United States Supreme Court cases in the latter part of the nineteenth century that affirmed the constitutionality of paper money. In the 1870 case of Hepburn v. Griswold, the Court had held that legal tender in the form of paper money violated the United States Constitution. The Legal Tender Cases reversed Hepburn, beginning with Knox v. Lee and Parker v. Davis in 1871,[1] and then Juilliard v. Greenman in 1884.[2]
Content from External Source
THe most significant being the last,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juilliard_v._Greenman
Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884), was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which issuance of greenbacks as legal tender was challenged in peacetime. The Legal Tender Acts of 1862 and 1863 were upheld.Julliard sold and delivered 100 bales of cotton to Greenman for $5,122.90. Greenman tendered $5,100 in United States legal tender notes and the rest in coin, but Julliard would not accept the U.S. notes. The tendered notes were originally issued under an act of Congress passed on February 25, 1862 and March 3, 1863, during the Civil War. An act of May 31, 1878 provided to “forbid the further retirement of United States legal tender notes”.

In an 8–1 decision, resting largely on prior court cases, the power "of making the notes of the United States a legal tender in payment of private debts" was interpreted as "included in the power to borrow money and to provide a national currency".

Justice Field dissented, challenging the court's interpretation of the terms to "borrow" and "coin" money.

He explained that the term to borrow money was well settled in other instruments such as municipal and corporate bonds, and private contracts. Allowing the government to make their notes legal tender would interfere with third-party contractual obligations as now third parties would be compelled by law to accept notes instead of coin. A private corporate bond could certainly not require an amusement park to accept the bond in exchange for entry. To find that the term to borrow money as written in the constitution allows interference in third-party contracts would certainly improve the value of the note, but it would deviate from the meaning of the term "to borrow money".

The meaning of the terms ‘to coin money’ is not at all doubtful. “It is to mould metallic substances into forms convenient for circulation and to stamp them with the impress of the government.” In the clause authorizing congress ‘to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States’, a distinction is clearly made between debt and coin.

Justice Field also cited many quotes by the founders against paper money, including the following by James Madison: "The pretext for paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts, was cut off."
Content from External Source


You may agree with Justice Field, but fall all intents and purposes, a 8:1 supreme court decision, and subsequent usage, means the matter is settled short of a constitutional amendment.

Your first example was a case against paper money, I'm talking about Fiat Currency not necessarily just paper money

Your second example is with regard to "greenbacks", do you know what a greenback is? it's paper money circulated during the civil war.

Thirdly I will recant my statement of Fiat Currency never being contested, I should have said successfully contested, it is legal because it makes a few select people very rich and they were willing to line the pockets of anyone who objected, thats the only reason, the founding fathers warned about this.
 

cheeple

Member
I'm not aware of anyone who is opposed to the second amendment as it's written. It's the interpretation by the courts under heavy influence by the arms industry who has interpreted "A well regulated militia being necessary to security of a free state..." to mean any yahoo, with zero training but enough money to buy a gun, can go anywhere in public packin' heat that a lot of people are opposed to, including some republicans I know.

I mean, is this guy part of a "well regulated militia" necessary to keep his state free?

Nevada man shifts in his theater seat, accidentally shoots himself

You keep bringing your hate for any political ideology that doesn't match yours into the discussion like a religion...you got issues.

2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Your first example was a case against paper money, I'm talking about Fiat Currency not necessarily just paper money

But the articles you quoted were about physical paper money, not fiat currency.

How then is it unconstitutional?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia

Right, and since you agree with that ruling you'd also agree (as solrey's example suggested) that:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Content from External Source
 

cheeple

Member
But the articles you quoted were about physical paper money, not fiat currency.

How then is it unconstitutional?

What part of [FONT=Times New Roman,Times]make any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts[/FONT], is still up for debate,
Why did we have a Gold Standard in the past?
 

cheeple

Member
Right, and since you agree with that ruling you'd also agree (as solrey's example suggested) that:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Content from External Source


I said 2nd amendment was not limited to service in the Militia, nice strawman.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What part of make any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts, is still up for debate,

Gold or silver coin. So then, you would argue that ANY form of paper money is unconstitutional? Even if it were backed by gold?

What about the use of paper money for buying things? That's not "payment of debts".

Really though, if you want to play with your own personal interpretations, it is up for debate. From something you quoted earlier

"[prevents the states] (but not the federal government[63]) from "making a tender" (i.e., authorizing something that may be offered in payment[64]) of any type or form of money to meet any financial obligation,[65] unless that form of money is coins made of gold or silver."
Content from External Source
Means that the states cannot create their own paper money (they cannot create legal tender that is not gold or silver coins). But nothing stops the federal government from doing so, and nothing stops the states from using it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I said 2nd amendment was not limited to service in the Militia, nice strawman.

Strawman? I'm asking if you agree with court's decision. Why reference it if you disagree with part of it? That's like saying "the law is whatever bits of the law I say are the law, but not the bits I disagree with"

Do you agree with Columbia v. Heller, which you referenced earlier?
 

cheeple

Member
Strawman? I'm asking if you agree with court's decision. Why reference it if you disagree with part of it? That's like saying "the law is whatever bits of the law I say are the law, but not the bits I disagree with"

Do you agree with Columbia v. Heller, which you referenced earlier?
Yes, and I also refer to my previous statement
I said 2nd amendment was not limited to service in the Militia,
Also

Why reference it if you disagree with part of it?

Thats another strawman, I never said I disagreed with Columbia V. Heller, thats not even a strawman you actually just made that part up out of absolutely nowhere.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, and I also refer to my previous statement
Also

Thats another strawman, I never said I disagreed with Columbia V. Heller, thats not even a strawman you actually just made that part up out of absolutely nowhere.

I brought it up when you seemed to take issue with:

I'm not aware of anyone who is opposed to the second amendment as it's written. It's the interpretation by the courts under heavy influence by the arms industry who has interpreted "A well regulated militia being necessary to security of a free state..." to mean any yahoo, with zero training but enough money to buy a gun, can go anywhere in public packin' heat that a lot of people are opposed to, including some republicans I know.

But you say you agree with:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Content from External Source
Which seems to pretty much say the same thing. So what exactly is this "strawman" you keep referring to?
 

cheeple

Member
So what exactly is this "strawman" you keep referring to?

I said the 2nd Amendment is not limited to service in the militia, from this you wrote:

Right, and since you agree with that ruling you'd also agree (as solrey's example suggested) that:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Content from External Source
I refer to my previous statement, all I said was "The 2nd Amendment is not limited to service in the militia".

Why were we originally on a Gold Standard?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
well I asked you how you came to that conclusion but at one point our coinage was 90% Silver and our Dollars were redeemable in Silver, why do you think that was?

Because of the British. Can you get to the point please?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The British controlled our coinage until 1964? thats why you believe our coins were silver and our dollars were redeemable in silver?

You said "at one point" so I assumed you meant this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#United_States_of_America
United Kingdom

In the 1790s, the United Kingdom, suffering a massive shortage of silver coinage, ceased to mint larger silver coins and issued "token" silver coins and overstruck foreign coins. With the end of the Napoleonic Wars, the United Kingdom began a massive recoinage programme that created standard gold sovereigns and circulating crowns and half-crowns, and eventually copper farthings in 1821. The recoinage of silver in United Kingdom after a long drought produced a burst of coins: the United Kingdom struck nearly 40 million shillings between 1816 and 1820, 17 million half crowns and 1.3 million silver crowns.

The 1819 Act for the Resumption of Cash Payments set 1823 as the date for resumption of convertibility, reached instead by 1821. Throughout the 1820s, small notes were issued by regional banks, which were finally restricted in 1826, while the Bank of England was allowed to set up regional branches. In 1833, however, Bank of England notes were made legal tender, and redemption by other banks was discouraged. In 1844 the Bank Charter Act established that Bank of England notes, fully backed by gold, were the legal standard. According to the strict interpretation of the gold standard, this 1844 act marks the establishment of a full gold standard for British money.

United States of America

The USA adopted a silver standard based on the Spanish milled dollar in 1785. This was codified in the 1792 Mint and Coinage Act, and by the Federal Government's use of the "Bank of the United States" to hold its reserves, as well as establish a fixed ratio of gold to the U.S. dollar. This was, in effect, a derivative silver standard, since the bank was not required to keep silver to back all of its currency.

This began a long series of attempts by the USA to create a bi-metallic standard for the U.S. Dollar, which would continue until the 1920s. Gold and silver coins were legal tender, including the Spanish real, a silver coin struck in the Western Hemisphere. Because of the huge debt taken on by the U.S. Federal Government to finance the Revolutionary War, silver coins struck by the government left circulation, and in 1806 President Jefferson suspended the minting of silver coins.

The U.S. Treasury was put on a strict hard-money standard, doing business only in gold or silver coin as part of the Independent Treasury Act of 1848, which legally separated the accounts of the Federal Government from the banking system. However, the fixed rate of gold to silver overvalued silver in relation to the demand for gold to trade or borrow from England. The drain of gold in favor of silver led to a search for gold, including the California Gold Rush of 1849. Following Gresham's law, silver poured into the USA, which traded with other silver nations, and gold moved out. In 1853, the USA reduced the silver weight of coins to keep them in circulation, and in 1857 removed legal tender status from foreign coinage.

In 1857 the final crisis of the free banking era of international finance began as American banks suspended payment in silver, rippling through the very young international financial system of central banks. In 1861 the U.S. government suspended payment in gold and silver, effectively ending the attempts to form a silver standard basis for the dollar.
Content from External Source
 

cheeple

Member
You said "at one point" so I assumed you meant this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#United_States_of_America
United Kingdom

In the 1790s, the United Kingdom, suffering a massive shortage of silver coinage, ceased to mint larger silver coins and issued "token" silver coins and overstruck foreign coins. With the end of the Napoleonic Wars, the United Kingdom began a massive recoinage programme that created standard gold sovereigns and circulating crowns and half-crowns, and eventually copper farthings in 1821. The recoinage of silver in United Kingdom after a long drought produced a burst of coins: the United Kingdom struck nearly 40 million shillings between 1816 and 1820, 17 million half crowns and 1.3 million silver crowns.

The 1819 Act for the Resumption of Cash Payments set 1823 as the date for resumption of convertibility, reached instead by 1821. Throughout the 1820s, small notes were issued by regional banks, which were finally restricted in 1826, while the Bank of England was allowed to set up regional branches. In 1833, however, Bank of England notes were made legal tender, and redemption by other banks was discouraged. In 1844 the Bank Charter Act established that Bank of England notes, fully backed by gold, were the legal standard. According to the strict interpretation of the gold standard, this 1844 act marks the establishment of a full gold standard for British money.

United States of America

The USA adopted a silver standard based on the Spanish milled dollar in 1785. This was codified in the 1792 Mint and Coinage Act, and by the Federal Government's use of the "Bank of the United States" to hold its reserves, as well as establish a fixed ratio of gold to the U.S. dollar. This was, in effect, a derivative silver standard, since the bank was not required to keep silver to back all of its currency.

This began a long series of attempts by the USA to create a bi-metallic standard for the U.S. Dollar, which would continue until the 1920s. Gold and silver coins were legal tender, including the Spanish real, a silver coin struck in the Western Hemisphere. Because of the huge debt taken on by the U.S. Federal Government to finance the Revolutionary War, silver coins struck by the government left circulation, and in 1806 President Jefferson suspended the minting of silver coins.

The U.S. Treasury was put on a strict hard-money standard, doing business only in gold or silver coin as part of the Independent Treasury Act of 1848, which legally separated the accounts of the Federal Government from the banking system. However, the fixed rate of gold to silver overvalued silver in relation to the demand for gold to trade or borrow from England. The drain of gold in favor of silver led to a search for gold, including the California Gold Rush of 1849. Following Gresham's law, silver poured into the USA, which traded with other silver nations, and gold moved out. In 1853, the USA reduced the silver weight of coins to keep them in circulation, and in 1857 removed legal tender status from foreign coinage.

In 1857 the final crisis of the free banking era of international finance began as American banks suspended payment in silver, rippling through the very young international financial system of central banks. In 1861 the U.S. government suspended payment in gold and silver, effectively ending the attempts to form a silver standard basis for the dollar.
Content from External Source
Thats not what I meant, I asked why were our coins minted in silver, and why were out dollars redeemable in silver.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Thats not what I meant, I asked why were our coins minted in silver, and why were out dollars redeemable in silver.

I don't follow. Coins have been minted in all kinds of metals (copper, nickel, iron). Are you referring to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_standard#United_States

By acts of Congress in 1933, the domestic economy was taken off the gold standard and placed on the silver standard for the first time. The Treasury Department was reempowered to issue paper currency redeemable in silver dollars and bullion, thereby divorcing the domesticeconomy from bimetallism and leaving it on the silver standard, although international settlements were still in gold.[6]This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vaults, the U.S. government (not the Federal Reserve) could continue to issue money against it. These silver certificates bore the name of the U. S. Treasury, not the Federal Reserve; they were shredded upon redemption since the redeemed silver was no longer in the Treasury. With the world market price of silver having been in excess of $1.29 per troy ounce since 1960, Congress repealed the legal foundation for Silver Certificates on June 4, 1963; but President John F. Kennedyresponded with Executive Order 11110 that the Treasury should continue to "issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury". This Series 1958 introduced an additional $4.29 billion worth of United States Notes into circulation, consisting of $2.00 and $5.00 bills; and although they were never issued, $10.00 and $20.00 notes were in the process of being printed when Kennedy was murdered in 1963. But the Treasury was being emptied of silver rapidly; in March 1964 issuance of the Series 1958 Silver Certificate was stopped and redemption in silver dollars was suspended; June 24, 1968 was the last day for redemption in silver bullion.
Content from External Source


Presumably it was or the reasons given? Running out of silver? I presume there's some big conspiracy theory around this?
 
Top