A Recipe for Awful Money -- LOCKED

[Dr. Caligari]

Next your going to tell me that even though it says no state shall emit bills of credit that it is ok for the Feds to do it right?

Of course.

What else only applies to states? Can the Feds pass bills of attainder?

No, they can't, because the Constitution says they can't-- in Article I, section 9, clause 3. That section lists things Congress can't do. A separate section (Article I, section 10) lists things States can't do. There are some things that are on both lists (e.g., bills of attainder and ex post facto laws), and there are some things that are in one list but not the other. States cannot enter into treaties (Art. I. section 10), but the federal government can (Article II, section 2, clause 2); States cannot grant letters of marque and reprisal (Article I, section 10), but Congress can (Article I, section 8, cl. 11); states cannot coin money (Article I, section 10), but Congress can (Article I, section 8, clause 5).

Pass laws that impair the obligation of contracts?

Way back in 1827, the Supreme Court held that a state could not pass a bankruptcy law which applied to pre-existing contracts, because bankruptcy laws "impair the obligations of contracts," but that Congress could pass bankruptcy laws because it is given that power in Article I, section 8, clause 4. Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213 (1827).

So, once again, you demonstrate that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Pottapaug1938]

On notes issued by commercial banks, there is an exception for "circulating notes" issued by "national banks".

Here's the statute (in part):

United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.....

--from 31 USC 5103.

However, I'm rusty on whether "circulating notes" of national banks encompasses ANY outstanding note of a national bank, or just certain ones. How much "circulating" does the note have to do, to be considered a "circulating note" for this purpose? I don't know.

When I was a bank auditor, one of the banks I audited (which happened to be a national bank) had issued debentures (unsecured corporate debt) to finance the construction of a skyscraper to be used as its new main office. But I don't recall whether the debentures were considered to be "circulating" for purposes of this statute.

I have twice received Federal Reserve Bank Notes (essentially National Currency issued by a Federal Reserve Bank) in circulation. They were in too low a grade for a coin dealer to keep them in stock; but I was quite happy to receive and retire them. If I had chosen to decline them, I'm sure that they would have found a willing recipient, whether or not they were legal tender, lawful money or whatever.

[JennyD]

Not to sound naive, as I am somewhat familiar with the law, although my knowledge of this particular section of law is well, dismally lacking in comprehension, But Famspear, maybe you can answer this.

I have still somewhere, found in an old chest when a family member died, about 2000 dollars in old bills that are marked Gold Cert and Silver Cert, I've never done anything with them, but is the value on the face still the value on the face, ie: a 10 dollar Gold Cert can still be used for 10 dollars in a store, etc, just not to redeem for gold or silver anymore, or am I missing something, PD has me so confused on the issue.. are these still considered legal tender? (I mean I'm actually considering selling them to a collector, and not using them in a store, but for conversation purposes)

- Jenn

[notorial dissent]

Jenny, before you give the collectors here a coronary, I would suggest having them looked at by someone, a real currency dealer, who will know what they are worth. Generally, unless the certs are really old and battered, they are worth more as collectors items than they are as currency. The silver certs are problematical depending on their condition, there are lots of battered ones out there, good ones not so much. The gold certs are probably a better bet as they were scarcer and as I recall they aren't as fussy about condition, but better is really good.

They are worth whatever they are denominated, all US currency is, the redemption clauses have just been voided, otherwise you could spend them at the store if you wanted to, but I'd talk to a reputable dealer first, as chances are they are worth far more to collectors than the 7-11.

As to PD, he is either an ignorant fool, a troll, a sovcit in diapers, a troll, incredibly stupid, or all of the above.

[Famspear]

Not to sound naive, as I am somewhat familiar with the law, although my knowledge of this particular section of law is well, dismally lacking in comprehension, But Famspear, maybe you can answer this.

I have still somewhere, found in an old chest when a family member died, about 2000 dollars in old bills that are marked Gold Cert and Silver Cert, I've never done anything with them, but is the value on the face still the value on the face, ie: a 10 dollar Gold Cert can still be used for 10 dollars in a store, etc, just not to redeem for gold or silver anymore, or am I missing something, PD has me so confused on the issue.. are these still considered legal tender? (I mean I'm actually considering selling them to a collector, and not using them in a store, but for conversation purposes)

- Jenn

Unfortunately, I am definitely not knowledgeable about old gold and silver certificates.

[Llwellyn]

Jenny,

Please, do as Notorial commented above. I was curious, and looked up the history about the Gold/Silver Certs (thank heavens Google works!).. and there was a good bit of information about them. While they were 'removed' from circulation, and even declared illegal to posses at one point, this is no longer the case. And 'technically' they are worth Face Value (in cash), from a historical point of view they could be worth drastically more.. This does depend on value/type/condition. Find a local coin/currency collector and have them appraised. I'd be curious about the findings and results. Best of luck!!!

Llwellyn

[Pottapaug1938]

Jenny,

I would echo what the others have said. The gold certificates are definitely keepers/worth selling; and the silver certificates are as well unless they are in lousy condition and of a common type -- in which case you can spend them (as I did with $50 in $1 silver certificates which I bought at face value from a coin dealer and spent at cash registers with young people working the registers).

It's interesting to note that a $10 gold certificate led to the big break in the Lindbergh kidnapping case. The ransom was paid with notes including gold certificates; but by 1934, the government had asked the general public to take note of anyone who tried to spend one. In this case, the $10 gold certificate was spent at a gas station, whereupon the attendant recorded the license plate in pencil on the back and notified the police -- who used the serial number to identify it as a Lindbergh ransom note.

[JennyD]

My initial reaction was to bring them to a collector and have them appraised for historical value as I felt the same, they would be worth more as a historical find than as the face value of the bills, however, in the vein of the conversation that PD started I thought it would also be useful to find out if they were also still considered legal tender for the face value on them, and I thank both of you for your answers, you confirmed what I thought..

This is the one area of law I am very very hazy upon, I was never very good at Tax Law, or Financial Law, which is probably why I went into investigating Civil Rights Abuses..

[Pottapaug1938]

My initial reaction was to bring them to a collector and have them appraised for historical value as I felt the same, they would be worth more as a historical find than as the face value of the bills, however, in the vein of the conversation that PD started I thought it would also be useful to find out if they were also still considered legal tender for the face value on them, and I thank both of you for your answers, you confirmed what I thought..

Both are still legal tender:

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... sales.aspx

[JennyD]

My initial reaction was to bring them to a collector and have them appraised for historical value as I felt the same, they would be worth more as a historical find than as the face value of the bills, however, in the vein of the conversation that PD started I thought it would also be useful to find out if they were also still considered legal tender for the face value on them, and I thank both of you for your answers, you confirmed what I thought..

Both are still legal tender:

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... sales.aspx

Unfortunately PD will probably see this exchange and wonder why they aren't redeemable in Lawful US Notes or something..

[Pottapaug1938]

My initial reaction was to bring them to a collector and have them appraised for historical value as I felt the same, they would be worth more as a historical find than as the face value of the bills, however, in the vein of the conversation that PD started I thought it would also be useful to find out if they were also still considered legal tender for the face value on them, and I thank both of you for your answers, you confirmed what I thought..

Both are still legal tender:

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... sales.aspx

Unfortunately PD will probably see this exchange and wonder why they aren't redeemable in Lawful US Notes or something..

He'll probably claim that Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution requires that the government must still redeem them in precious metal.

I'm guessing that $10 in gold bullion would require a magnifying glass to see clearly....

[Patriotdiscussions]

Next your going to tell me that even though it says no state shall emit bills of credit that it is ok for the Feds to do it right?

Of course.

What else only applies to states? Can the Feds pass bills of attainder?

No, they can't, because the Constitution says they can't-- in Article I, section 9, clause 3. That section lists things Congress can't do. A separate section (Article I, section 10) lists things States can't do. There are some things that are on both lists (e.g., bills of attainder and ex post facto laws), and there are some things that are in one list but not the other. States cannot enter into treaties (Art. I. section 10), but the federal government can (Article II, section 2, clause 2); States cannot grant letters of marque and reprisal (Article I, section 10), but Congress can (Article I, section 8, cl. 11); states cannot coin money (Article I, section 10), but Congress can (Article I, section 8, clause 5).

Pass laws that impair the obligation of contracts?

Way back in 1827, the Supreme Court held that a state could not pass a bankruptcy law which applied to pre-existing contracts, because bankruptcy laws "impair the obligations of contracts," but that Congress could pass bankruptcy laws because it is given that power in Article I, section 8, clause 4. Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213 (1827).

So, once again, you demonstrate that you have no idea what you're talking about.

On the federal government being able to emit bills of credit.

Let me direct you to the August 16th draft of the constitution which had a clause to allow the federal to emit bills of credit. They voted, 11 of the 13 states voted, 9 states voted to not give the federal government the power to emit bills of credit.

But then again I don't know what I am talking about.

[Pottapaug1938]

On the federal government being able to emit bills of credit.

Let me direct you to the August 16th draft of the constitution which had a clause to allow the federal to emit bills of credit. They voted, 11 of the 13 states voted, 9 states voted to not give the federal government the power to emit bills of credit.

But then again I don't know what I am talking about.

You are right on the mark with your last sentence. The fact that the August 16th draft of the Constitution say something-or-other means not a damn thing, Pal. The only thing that matters is what is in the final version . At most, the earlier drafts MIGHT speak to legislative intent; but if the clause you mention didn't make it into the Constitution as adopted and ratified, then it doesn't matter if 11, 9, 7 or some other number of states voted in favor of it at some point.

And, once again, you are cowering from direct questions posed to you, and are moving the goalposts yet again. A word to the wise: you have yet to do anything but embarrass yourself in your time on Quatloos. Have you no pride in yourself? At long last, have you no pride in yourself?

[notorial dissent]

But then again I don't know what I am talking about.

Probably the one statement you've made that is accurate, truthful, and that I can unreservedly agree with.

You are intellectually dishonest in the extreme and basically a coward. You bluster and you blather and yet will not answer simple questions.

You continue to exhibit your ignorance by going on about things that are not in the constitution when all that is really important is what IS in the final document. There were lots of things discussed and considered, but they were later discarded for various reasons, but in the end the were DISCARDED.

[.]

Pure troll. At least moderate his gibberish until he comes up with something worth refuting.

[Patriotdiscussions]

But then again I don't know what I am talking about.

Probably the one statement you've made that is accurate, truthful, and that I can unreservedly agree with.

You are intellectually dishonest in the extreme and basically a coward. You bluster and you blather and yet will not answer simple questions.

You continue to exhibit your ignorance by going on about things that are not in the constitution when all that is really important is what IS in the final document. There were lots of things discussed and considered, but they were later discarded for various reasons, but in the end the were DISCARDED.

No shit it was discarded, because the founders did not want the federal government to emit bills of credit.

And yet here we are.


*******
James Madison, Journal of the Federal Convention, Vol.2, p.541

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved to strike out, "and emit bills on the credit of the United States." If the United States had credit, such bills would be unnecessary; If they had not, unjust and useless.

Mr. BUTLER seconds the motion.

p.542

Mr. MADISON. Will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes, in that Shape, may in some emergencies be best.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. Striking out the words will leave room still for notes of a responsible minister, which will do all the, good without the mischief. The moneyed interest will oppose the plan of government, if paper emissions be not prohibited.

Mr. GORHAM was for striking out without inserting any prohibition. If the words stand, they may suggest and lead to the measure.

Mr. MASON had doubts on the subject. Congress, he thought, would not have the power, unless it were expressed. Though he had a mortal hatred to paper-money, yet as he could not foresee all emergencies, he was unwilling to tie the hands of the Legislature. He observed that the late war could not have been carried on, had such a prohibition existed.

Mr. GORHAM. The power, as far as it will be necessary, or safe, is involved in that of borrowing.

Mr. MERCER was a friend to paper-money, though in the present state and temper of America, he should neither propose nor approve of such a measure. He was consequently opposed to a prohibition of it altogether. It will stamp suspicion on the Government, to deny it a discretion on this point. It was impolitic, also, to excite the opposition of all those who were friends to paper-money. The people of property would be sure to be on the side of the plan, and it was impolitic to purchase their further attachment with the loss of the opposite class of citizens.

p. 543

Mr. ELLSWORTH thought this a favourable moment, to shut and bar the door against paper-money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made were now fresh in the public mind, and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By withholding the power from the new Government, more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost anything else. Paper-money can in no case be necessary. Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good.

Mr. RANDOLPH, notwithstanding his antipathy to paper-money, could not agree to strike out the words, as he could not foresee all the occasions that might arise.

Mr. WILSON. It will have a most salutary influence on the credit of the United States, to remove the possibility of paper-money. This expedient can never succeed whilst its mischiefs are remembered. And as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources.

Mr. BUTLER remarked, that paper was a legal tender in no country in Europe. He was urgent for disarming the government of such a power.

Mr. MASON was still averse to tying the hands of the Legislature altogether. If there was no example in Europe, as just remarked, it might be observed, on the other side, that there was none in which the Government was restrained on this head.

Mr. READ thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelation.

Mr. LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan, than retain the three words, "and emit bills."

On the motion for striking out,-

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye-9; New Jersey, Maryland, no-2.

The clause for borrowing money was agreed to, nem. con.

Adjourned.

[Pottapaug1938]

PD, you have publicly embarrassed yourself yet again. You seem incapable of understanding what we have said already, so I will repeat it once more, and try not to use big words.

IF IT IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT WAS SAID IN THE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT TO PUT INTO THE CONSTITUTION. IF THEY WANTED TO PROHIBIT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM EMITTING BILLS OF CREDIT, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO IN THE CONSTITUTION.

[notorial dissent]

Irregardless of the commentary, there is nothing in the Constitution preventing the gov't from emitting bills of credit if they so chose.

[Famspear]

We have various ways of settling this. We can follow the rule that says "under the U.S. legal system, the meaning of the U.S Constitution is determined according to the interpretation of Patriotdiscussions" or we can follow the rule that says "under the U.S. legal system, the meaning of the U.S Constitution is determined according to the interpretation of the courts".

The former rule is an imaginary rule; the latter rule is the actual rule.

From the United States Supreme Court:

By the Constitution of the United States, the several States are prohibited from coining money, emitting bills of credit, or making anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. But no intention can be inferred from this to deny to Congress either of these powers. Most of the powers granted to Congress are described in the eighth section of the first article; the limitations intended to be set to its powers, so as to exclude certain things which might otherwise be taken to be included in the general grant, are defined in the ninth section; the tenth section is addressed to the States only. This section prohibits the States from doing some things which the United States are expressly prohibited from doing, as well as from doing some things which the United States are expressly authorized to do, and from doing some things which are neither expressly granted nor expressly denied to the United States. Congress and the States equally are expressly prohibited from passing any bill of attainder or ex post facto law, or granting any title of nobility. The States are forbidden, while the President and Senate are expressly authorized, to make treaties. The States are forbidden, but Congress is expressly authorized, to coin money. The States are prohibited from emitting bills of credit; but Congress, which is neither expressly authorized nor expressly forbidden to do so, has, as we have already seen, been held to have the power of emitting bills of credit, and of making every provision for their circulation as currency, short of giving them the quality of legal tender for private debts — even by those who have denied its authority to give them this quality.

It appears to us to follow, as a logical and necessary consequence, that Congress has the power to issue the obligations of the United States in such form, and to impress upon them such qualities as currency for the purchase of merchandise and the payment of debts, as accord with the usage of sovereign governments. The power, as incident to the power of borrowing money and issuing bills or notes of the government for money borrowed, of impressing upon those bills or notes the quality of being a legal tender for the payment of private debts, was a power universally understood to belong to sovereignty, in Europe and America, at the time of the framing and adoption of the Constitution of the United States. The governments of Europe, acting through the monarch or the legislature, according to the distribution of powers under their respective constitutions, had and have as sovereign a power of issuing paper money as of stamping coin. [ . . . ] The exercise of this power not being prohibited to Congress by the Constitution, it is included in the power expressly granted to borrow money on the credit of the United States.

Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884).

[Famspear]

More from the U.S. Supreme Court in Juilliard v. Greenman:

A constitution, establishing a frame of government, declaring fundamental principles, and creating a national sovereignty, and intended to endure for ages and to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs, is not to be interpreted with the strictness of a private contract. The Constitution of the United States, by apt words of designation or general description, marks the outlines of the powers granted to the national legislature; but it does not undertake, with the precision and detail of a code of laws, to enumerate the subdivisions of those powers, or to specify all the means by which they may be carried into execution. Chief Justice Marshall, after dwelling upon this view, as required by the very nature of the Constitution, by the language in which it is framed, by the limitations upon the general powers of Congress introduced in the ninth section of the first article, and by the omission to use any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just interpretation, added these emphatic words: "In considering this question, then, we must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding" .....

(emphasis added).

Patriotdiscussions, do you remember my comments above, about the power of the courts to have bailiffs, court reporters, and court clerks? None of those powers are specifically mentioned in the text of the Constitution. Yet, these are part of the judicial power under the Constitution.

You may be confusing two concepts: the concept that the U.S. Constitution makes the national government a government of relatively limited powers (which is correct), and the false, incorrect idea that the U.S. Constitution must specifically state each and every subdivision of a given power of the national government in order for the subdivision of that power to be validly granted to the national government by the Constitution.