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 most significant being the last,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juilliard_v._Greenman
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 most significant being the last,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juilliard_v._Greenman


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:

 

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:



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

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

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:

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
 

cheeple

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

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



Presumably it was or the reasons given? Running out of silver? I presume there's some big conspiracy theory around this?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
J Another sun path claim Flat Earth 4
Rory Debunked: "You must love yourself before you love another" - fake Buddha quote Quotes Debunked 7
Whitebeard Another suspected Novichok incident in Salisbury UK Current Events 4
P Another photographic anomaly [Long exposure of plane lights] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
Mick West Contrail Shadowing another Contrail Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
Trailblazer Another photoshopped chemtrail poster: Michael J Murphy Contrails and Chemtrails 1
derrick06 Another Google Moon Anomaly General Discussion 1
Charlesinsandiego Another triangular aircraft, this time in Kansas [B2 Bomber] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 25
JRBids (Another) secretly recorded video of a "chemtrail pilot" "confessing". Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Steve Bucky Rogers: Another anti-NWO domestic terrorist caught before the final act. Conspiracy Theories 6
HappyMonday Another Chemtrail Lawsuit Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Trigger Hippie Another TV Documentary Worth Viewing Contrails and Chemtrails 3
BlueCollarCritic Another Anti-CCW (C0ncealed Carry Weapon) Video Conspiracy Theories 1
Nighthawk Another site Contrails and Chemtrails 0
lamentiraestaahifuera.com Another one about chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 6
F Example of a Boeing 737 "Tic Tac" (video) UFOs and Aliens 9
BlueCollarCritic Federal Gov Illegal Actvity Example #37 - Violation Of Federal Contracts 23% Rule Conspiracy Theories 4

Related Articles

Top