A Recipe for Awful Money -- LOCKED

[LPC]

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.

From Madison's Notes of the third day of the convention (May 28, 1787):

Mr. KING objected to one of the rules in the Report authorising any member to call for the yeas & nays and have them entered on the minutes. He urged that as the acts of the Convention were not to bind the Constituents, it was unnecessary to exhibit this evidence of the votes; and improper as changes of opinion would be frequent in the course of the business & would fill the minutes with contradictions.

Col. MASON seconded the objection; adding that such a record of the opinions of members would be an obstacle to a change of them on conviction; and in case of its being hereafter promulged must furnish handles to the adversaries of the Result of the Meeting. The proposed rule was rejected nem. contradicente.

(Emphasis added.)

[Duke2Earl]

The key fact about this "patriot" (an offensive use of that word, BTW) is not only is he totally wrong, very stupid, and intellectually dishonest, but he is an out and out liar. He came in here on September 2nd, saying how he was a bit confused, and he just needed some help from the "experts." He also said..

"There are lots of tax protestors locked up, I know why and I am not one of them. Thanks for your concern."

Ah yes, he's just a poor lost lamb that needs a little guidance from the "experts" to aid him in his confusion. He really doesn't really know hardly anything about these issues and he's not a tax protester... no, not a bit.

Well, over the last 5 weeks he has led the "experts" around the the horn. And slowly he has revealed himself. First, he was citing cases, then he was citing every wacko document on the internet. Now he is citing dicta from the Constitutional Convention. He is not someone who just needs a little guidance from the "experts." He has obviously spent hundreds if not thousands of hours cutting and pasting, totally misunderstanding and constructing the full scale sovereign citizen and tax protester house of cards. He has devoted his life to this. And he is here for the same thing they all come here for, to prove that everyone else is wrong and that he understands it better than all those professionals. I strongly suspect that we know this person and that his name has been used here before and he's just hiding at the moment. And he's sitting behind his computer chuckling daily about how he is putting it over on the "experts."

[JennyD]

Not to derail the discussion but i know everyone wanted to know how my appraisal of the currency I found went.

I found out from having it appraised at two separate places (both reputable in my area) that I have (and am now working on having the lawyer draw up the sale agreement) a cool 23K in bills that both antique houses would love to have. The bills were in great condition, almost like they were gotten at a bank at the time and just put aside for a rainy day, and I know I will put that 23K away for just that, and everyone will be happy to know I am getting it in FRN's that I can use at any store or kiosk in the United States. (the two appraisals were within 10 dollars of each other btw, so I feel comfortable with them)

Just thought i would update everyone, and thank you again for the information, and I hope that sometimes I actually make sense when I respond around here...

[KickahaOta]

I found out from having it appraised at two separate places (both reputable in my area) that I have (and am now working on having the lawyer draw up the sale agreement) a cool 23K in bills that both antique houses would love to have.

Wow! Congratulations!

Echoing the theme of "value is what people agree it is": While I was cleaning up my house, I came across a forgotten treasure of my own. Way back in my college days, I did some work for a little fledgling startup gaming company called Wizards of the Coast, just another bit player in the market, going up against the dominant company, a juggernaut named TSR. Wizards of the Coast had just released a strange new concept -- a "collectable card game" -- and it was called Magic: the Gathering. Folks who had done work for them were able to purchase packs of gaming cards at a discount, and I bought some. I never actually played the game much, and I wound up just filing the cards away in a box and putting them in the back of a closet.

The game caught on. And that little fledgling startup ended up devouring TSR whole (before itself being devoured by Hasbro, but that's another story).

When I found those cards again -- which was while I was in the process of donating/recycling/throwing away about half the contents of my house -- it turned out that the years and the collectors' market had done very odd things to the value of the initial few print runs of Magic cards. Many of them are basically worthless. But a few of them are worth thousands. And it so happens that I had a few very nice, near-mint-condition cards that several local and Internet resellers were willing to pay about $18K for.

For little slips of cardboard with pictures on them. With nothing "backing up" their value, other than the desire of certain people to have them, and the willingness of those people to pay for them.

[.]

Careful, you might upset our troll 'cause stuff like that's not in the umpteenth draft of the Constimatution.

[notorial dissent]

JennyD, congratulations, I'm so pleased for you. I'm glad they've gone to a good home and that they have done you some good in the bargain. You owe you ancestor a heartfelt thanks for their foresight.

[Patriotdiscussions]

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).

What kind of money could they borrow though?


George Bancroft, A Plea for the Constitution, p.82 - p.83 -- Appendix II.

The money of the constitution.

In the interpretation of words a cardinal rule is, to conform to usage. In 1787 every English dictionary defined "money" as metallic coin; and therefore as metallic coin, it must be interpreted in the clause which authorizes the legislature of the United States to borrow money. A second cardinal rule of interpretation is, where a word is used in the same document more than once, it is to be interpreted in every instance as bearing the same meaning, unless there is an obvious and incontrovertible reason to the contrary. The constitution of the United States authorizes their legislature to coin money; and of the meaning of the word in that clause, no doubt can exist.

[Famspear]

What kind of money could they borrow though?

Any kind they want to.

In the interpretation of words a cardinal rule is, to conform to usage. In 1787 every English dictionary defined "money" as metallic coin; and therefore as metallic coin, it must be interpreted in the clause which authorizes the legislature of the United States to borrow money. A second cardinal rule of interpretation is, where a word is used in the same document more than once, it is to be interpreted in every instance as bearing the same meaning, unless there is an obvious and incontrovertible reason to the contrary. The constitution of the United States authorizes their legislature to coin money; and of the meaning of the word in that clause, no doubt can exist.

A third cardinal rule is that we don't follow what someone claims --without proof -- to have been the entry in every English dictionary back in 1787.

A fourth cardinal rule is that the same word in the United States Constitution can have more than one legal meaning. For example, the word "law" itself has more than one meaning when used in the U.S. Constitution -- in one sentence in particular, where the word is used twice.

Your argument appears to be that "money" means only "coin." That is a completely illogical conclusion. It reminds me of the silly tax protester argument about the meaning of "income" as used in a 1909 law that taxed corporate incomes. The tax protesters essentially try to argue that because the only entities taxed under that law were corporations, the word "income" as used in that law must have meant "corporate income" -- and that any reference to the word "income" in a later law must be restricted to mean "corporate income."

Under that twisted kind of logic, if the 1909 law had taxed only individuals, then "income" could mean only "income of individuals" in any subsequent law taxing income.

Duuuhhhhhh....

A better question for "Patriotdiscussions" would be: Why are you having these thoughts? Why are people like you so stuck on the topic of "money." Why is it that you struggle with fundamental concepts with which the average sixth grader has no problem?

Under the U.S. Constitution, Federal Reserve notes -- which are paper money - are constitutional as currency, and as lawful money, and as legal tender. The courts have ruled, and that's the end of it. All your efforts, Patriotdiscussions, will never change that.

[AndyK]

Irrespective of the postings of the world's greatest constitutional expert and supreme Internet delver;

In every case which has challenged the constutionality of the printing and issuing of paper money (either backed by precious metals or not) by the United States, the Supreme Court has either expilcitly upheld such constutionality or refused to hear (let stand a lower court decision) the challenge.

In other words, it does not matter how much PD blows or how many electrons he sacrifices -- he is WRONG. And, the more inane arguments he posts, the wronger he gets.

This thread has moved well off the original topic of Merrilonomics. Absent any intelligent, factual additional discussion (preferably on the original topic) the lock will be turned on this evening.

Alternatively, anyone who wishes to expend the effort can split the thread; copying all the off-topic posts (just about everything since October 6) to a new thread.

[Pottapaug1938]

I like the idea of locking the thread. PD has moved the goalposts yet again. IF I thought that he were capable of giving direct answers to direct questions, OR if I felt that he was capable of constructing an argument consisting of more than antique word salad, I might feel differently.

I haven't met a poster, on Quatloos, who is this lame since our old pal Harvester, a/k/a Mr. Sock Puppet.

[notorial dissent]

Sovrunidjitjibber demonstrates once again that he simply hasn't mastered the elementary school task of learning how to use and understanding how a dictionary works, or that definitions of words not only can, but do change over time, and can shockingly have more than one meaning depending upon context. He also still isn't grasping that terms in the Constitution, like in laws, unless it is specifically specified, have their common meaning. At no place in the Constitution is the term money actually defined, therefore it has whatever the current meaning of the word is. The Courts, who gets to make these kind of decisions, have already waded in on this, repeatedly, and he is yet again, WRONG!! In short, Congress gets to say what money is as far as the law is concerned, not Sovrunidjitjibber. Life's rough!

[JamesVincent]

I haven't met a poster, on Quatloos, who is this lame since our old pal Harvester, a/k/a Mr. Sock Puppet.

Not even "Mr. Consent", NGUpowered?

[Famspear]

In defense of "Patriotdiscussions," we can say that the material he quoted was not the usual crap. Bancroft was indeed a historian, a former Secretary of the Navy, and one of the people who established the U.S. Naval Academy. Years later, a U.S. Navy submarine was named after him. Bancroft's critique of the Juilliard v. Greenman decision of the U.S. Supreme Court apparently came shortly after the decision was handed down.

I would point out that doctrines of American constitutional law are not generally established by historians as historians, no matter how eminent the historian may be, and no matter how persuasive their arguments may seem to some people. Bancroft's idea about what the characteristic of "good" money should be is also open to critique.

In further defense of "Patriotdiscussions," I would argue that his latest post is not nearly as far off the mark as some of his prior posts in other threads, in terms of attempting to move the goal posts.

[JamesVincent]

For someone who claimed to have spent 6 years in economics (although has not said, anywhere that I remember, what spending years in economics actually means, almost sounds like a reform school) PD has demonstrated a wonderful lack of knowledge of the simplest forms of an economy. We've seen everything from currency to taxes, all wrong and with no factual support, or even common sense support. I am not a lawyer, by any means, but I do try to use common sense when I look at a subject. And if common sense tells me that that subject cannot be, well, I'm not normally wrong. Even as uneducated as I am I still can understand simple economics, and I better be able to since I have run businesses for myself and others, and have lived in a world where you need a simple understanding to succeed. PD has demonstrated that, like many other sov'runs before him, he lacks that simple, common sense, knowledge that most people have who actually do things in life. So, while living in Momma's basement may seem like the life of Riley, that common sense knowledge would allow you to succeed in an endeavor that moved you out of the basement and into the real world.

I echo what others have said about locking the thread, we are too far away from what it was originally about and I see no reasonable hope of it coming back to course (Admiralty Law again ) and I also repeat what I requested in another thread. That PDs posts be moderated and only allowed if they contain either a real question or contain some substance that is actually plausible. We are not here to entertain or provide a forum for windowlickers, we are here to expose scams.

[JamesVincent]

In defense of "Patriotdiscussions," we can say that the material he quoted was not the usual crap. Bancroft was indeed a historian, a former Secretary of the Navy, and one of the people who established the U.S. Naval Academy. Years later, a U.S. Navy submarine was named after him. Bancroft's critique of the Juilliard v. Greenman decision of the U.S. Supreme Court apparently came shortly after the decision was handed down.

I would point out that doctrines of American constitutional law are not generally established by historians as historians, no matter how eminent the historian may be, and no matter how persuasive their arguments may seem to some people. Bancroft's idea about what the characteristic of "good" money should be is also open to critique.

In further defense of "Patriotdiscussions," I would argue that his latest post is not nearly as far off the mark as some of his prior posts in other threads, in terms of attempting to move the goal posts.

May very well be Fam, but he is still researching to prove his point as valid, not researching to understand why it isn't after it has been pointed out as invalid. And, as you correctly pointed out, a historian, no matter how esteemed, is not a valid source of law. So to use a historians viewpoint to prop up his own just proves that he has not learned a damn thing and has no intention of learning. Courts decide the law after Congress enacts them (in simple terms) and no amount of wishing is going to change that.

[Patriotdiscussions]

For someone who claimed to have spent 6 years in economics (although has not said, anywhere that I remember, what spending years in economics actually means, almost sounds like a reform school) PD has demonstrated a wonderful lack of knowledge of the simplest forms of an economy. We've seen everything from currency to taxes, all wrong and with no factual support, or even common sense support. I am not a lawyer, by any means, but I do try to use common sense when I look at a subject. And if common sense tells me that that subject cannot be, well, I'm not normally wrong. Even as uneducated as I am I still can understand simple economics, and I better be able to since I have run businesses for myself and others, and have lived in a world where you need a simple understanding to succeed. PD has demonstrated that, like many other sov'runs before him, he lacks that simple, common sense, knowledge that most people have who actually do things in life. So, while living in Momma's basement may seem like the life of Riley, that common sense knowledge would allow you to succeed in an endeavor that moved you out of the basement and into the real world.

I echo what others have said about locking the thread, we are too far away from what it was originally about and I see no reasonable hope of it coming back to course (Admiralty Law again ) and I also repeat what I requested in another thread. That PDs posts be moderated and only allowed if they contain either a real question or contain some substance that is actually plausible. We are not here to entertain or provide a forum for windowlickers, we are here to expose scams.

I will release my mind control over you so that way you do not have to waste time responding..... Because you just have to respond right?

[Patriotdiscussions]

For someone who claimed to have spent 6 years in economics (although has not said, anywhere that I remember, what spending years in economics actually means, almost sounds like a reform school) PD has demonstrated a wonderful lack of knowledge of the simplest forms of an economy. We've seen everything from currency to taxes, all wrong and with no factual support, or even common sense support. I am not a lawyer, by any means, but I do try to use common sense when I look at a subject. And if common sense tells me that that subject cannot be, well, I'm not normally wrong. Even as uneducated as I am I still can understand simple economics, and I better be able to since I have run businesses for myself and others, and have lived in a world where you need a simple understanding to succeed. PD has demonstrated that, like many other sov'runs before him, he lacks that simple, common sense, knowledge that most people have who actually do things in life. So, while living in Momma's basement may seem like the life of Riley, that common sense knowledge would allow you to succeed in an endeavor that moved you out of the basement and into the real world.

I echo what others have said about locking the thread, we are too far away from what it was originally about and I see no reasonable hope of it coming back to course (Admiralty Law again ) and I also repeat what I requested in another thread. That PDs posts be moderated and only allowed if they contain either a real question or contain some substance that is actually plausible. We are not here to entertain or provide a forum for windowlickers, we are here to expose scams.

I have no need to tell you what I have done in life friend. But I do have a beautiful wife and two beautiful little girls.

[Pottapaug1938]

Two posts; no attempt to respond to direct questions or provide relevant facts to back up his assertions. How like PD.

It's lock-up time, Mods; and as someone else suggested, I think that PD deserves at least moderated status so that he doesn't waste our time with threads like this one.

[AndyK]

PD has made two contributions of such major significance that the thread is now LOCKED

[LPC]

In the interpretation of words a cardinal rule is, to conform to usage. In 1787 every English dictionary defined "money" as metallic coin; .... The constitution of the United States authorizes their legislature to coin money; and of the meaning of the word in that clause, no doubt can exist.

This is not just wrong in multiple ways, but silly.

The essential message is that the Constitution locks the US government into the technology and monetary practices of the 18th century, with no possibility of ever varying those practices without a constitutional amendment. That's both wrong and silly.

But the real silliness is the exultation of form over substance. Under this interpretation of the Constitution, Congress can create aluminum "coins" out of $0.0001 worth of metal and a face value of $1.00, but cannot create paper currency with the same face value.

Madison's Notes show that there were disagreements over the wisdom of "paper money" (which did exist even though the dictionaries of the day were not aware of it) and it's clear that the delegates agreed to disagree. As a result, the Constitution neither authorizes paper money nor prohibits it. Whether the US government should or should not issue paper money was a decision that was left for a later day.

And it was later decided that it should.

And that's that.