Federal reserve notes are unconstitutional

[trianglechoke7]

Hello, this is my first post here.

I wanted to try out this tax evasion argument.

Here goes:

Article 1, Section 8, cl. 5 states that congress has the authority to, "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."

Prior to the writing of the Constitution, the framers has experienced high inflation of the "Continental" dollar, a fiat paper money. Realizing that fiat currency posed such dangers, they wrote the aforementioned clause which refers to hard currency (gold and silver), because the term "coined" had a specific meaning in the 18th century. Looking at Article 1, Section 10, we see that if the framers had meant that congress could issue fiat currency, they could of used the term of the day, "bills of credit." Since the federal government does not have any powers not enumerated in the Constitution, it therefore does not have the authority to issue fiat currency, and by extension, delegate this authority to a private banking cartel.

Therefore, federal reserve notes are not legal currency, and since taxes are requested in federal reserve notes, taxes are not legal.

Now, I am fully aware that the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve and it's notes has been previously upheld. But just because the court strikes down a claim does not make that claim invalid. It just may be the case that the court is wrong, or illegitimate. After all, it's not really "crazy" that the courts would uphold unconstitutional actions of the government, as most everything the government does is unconstitutional (i.e. regulation of education, farm subsidies, ad infinitum).

Now, my question is: is this argument valid? I'm not asking if the court would agree with me, which they obviously wouldn't. Just if it's valid.

[Joey Smith]

is this argument valid?

No, not at all. This argument does not have the slightest shred of validity.

Additionally, as if anything additional was needed, in our system of government everyone is allowed to disagree on this, that, and the other thing, and to come up with their own theories on whatever. But to resolve disputes, there are the courts and their say is final -- and the courts have rejected this idiotic theory time after time after time after time after time, and nobody who matters agrees with this theory either.

[Paul]

Even if it were a true that federal reserve notes are unconstitutional, it doesn't follow that the current income tax is invalid.

[trianglechoke7]

Joey Smith, in that case, I hope you will still humor me.

But to resolve disputes, there are the courts and their say is final

Only in the sense that they have the monopoly on force. But it's pretty obvious, in a more objective sense, that this assertion is false.

For example, imagine a country which has a constitution that states, "The federal government does not have the authority to violate the privacy of individuals without a warrant."

Then the legislative branch makes a law which states, "The president has the authority to peek in the windows of homes just because he feels like it."

Then let's say the highest court of the land says this law is constitutional. Does this make the law constitutional? I say no, it just makes the court wrong.

and nobody who matters agrees with this theory either

Appeal to authority and popularity.

Paul,

Why do you say that? How could the government have the authority to force me to pay them in an illegal currency, especially when they beat you up if you try and use a competing one?

[grixit]

I saw Edge try to put a Triangle Choke on Kane once. It didn't work out so well.

[Famspear]

You're talking about an imaginary legal system and imaginary rules. Under our legal system, the law literally is what the courts rule the law to be in an actual case or controversy.

Getting back to the main question: The federal income tax is not a tax on "money" or the "receipt of money" or the receipt of "Federal Reserve notes." It's a tax on "income" -- regardless of whether the income is legal or illegal, and regardless of the "form" of the income takes.

[Nikki]

Triangular:

There is absolutely no requirement to pay taxes in Federal Reserve Notes.

You can pay them via an electronic transfer, with a big pile of silver dollars, or with a simple accounting entry that offsets what the government owes you.

However, since you process FRNs every day, why are you attempting to construct an absolutely absurd tax evasion strategyu based on a long past refuted argument?

The most likely scenario is that you have absolutely no clue about what you are saying, but that you are just another troll posting here to count coup and take your newly-gained creds back to your normal sovereign lunatic forum.

[Joey Smith]

No, you're wrong. It would be one thing if the courts ruled X and a substantial number of legal and constitutional scholars came out and criticized the courts for being wrong. But they haven't. Not a single credible legal or constitutional scholar -- out of the many thousands in the United States -- has voiced that Federal Reserve Notes are not money or legal tender good for all purposes, including paying taxes. Why is that?

I'll let others argue the technical merits. You tell me why it is that no credible legal or constitutional scholar believes in your theory. It is either (A) a vast conspiracy involving many tens-of-thousands of people, or (B) your theory is completely wrong.

I choose to believe the latter.

BTW, about the only people who do espouse this nutty theory are the paytriots who are attempting to make a buck from selling books, tapes, etc., no different than those "see through clothes!" eyeglasses that people used to market in the backs of comic books.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Great Van Pelt's ghost!

[Famspear]

Triangular:

There is absolutely no requirement to pay taxes in Federal Reserve Notes.

You can pay them via an electronic transfer, with a big pile of silver dollars, or with a simple accounting entry that offsets what the government owes you.

However, since you process FRNs every day, why are you attempting to construct an absolutely absurd tax evasion strategyu based on a long past refuted argument?

Nikki makes an excellent point here.

As an aside on the "payment of tax" side of the discussion: Not only does the law NOT require that taxes be paid in Federal Reserve Notes, but very few federal income taxes are paid in "Federal Reserve Notes." Almost none. Federal income taxes are almost always paid by check or money order. The fact that the checks, etc., are denominated in U.S. Dollars does not make them "Federal Reserve Notes."

On the "income" side of the discussion: Very few people receive their income in the form of "Federal Reserve Notes" either. Most people receive -- again -- checks. Or their compensation is credited by "direct deposit."

There is absolutely no linkage between the validity of Federal Reserve Notes and the validity of the federal income tax. And both are legally valid.

[Famspear]

Essentially, a large part of what tax protesters and other anti-government types base their theories on is the assumption that the real law is not "real," and that there is some other, "more real" law that is hidden behind the law. The tax protesters, of course, believe or claim to believe that they themselves know the "truth" about what the "more real" law is, and that the courts are just wrong or corrupt, etc., etc. The question at the beginning of this thread illustrates something that legal commentator Daniel B. Evans has identified: The tendency of tax protesters to fall into the trap of "Not understanding the legal process, or the meaning of 'law.'". Evans writes:

I am often asked, “Why do you always assume that the courts are right and the tax protesters are wrong?” Or, “Couldn’t the courts be wrong about what the Constitution means?” Those questions demonstrate that the questioner doesn’t really understand what is meant by “law” or the “rule of law.”

Law is not some kind of abstraction that floats in the air, free from any connection to people or events. “The law” is what legislatures, courts, and governments do, and the real test of what the law “is” shows in how the law is applied in actual cases.

So when lawyers talk about what “the law” is, they are talking about how a judge will rule. Not how the judge should rule, or might rule, but will rule.

[ . . .]The fact that some people believe that the law should be different that what courts have said it is doesn’t mean that the law is different from what the courts have said, but only that they should argue their positions within the political system and attempt to change the results.

In the case of the income tax, there is no conflict. The judicial, executive, and legislative branches of our government, and a majority of the voters, have all agreed for more than 90 years that (1) an income tax is constitutional, (2) it applies to wages, and (3) every citizen and resident of every state is required to file a tax return and pay the tax. That is what the law is. There is no question about it.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#courts

(bolding added).

I hope this helps our newcomer.

[trianglechoke7]

framspear,

Under our legal system, the law literally is what the courts rule the law to be in an actual case or controversy.

You're just talking about a "living constitution" philosophy. That's the same as having no constitution. Is that really the intention of the framers?

The federal income tax is not a tax on "money" or the "receipt of money" or the receipt of "Federal Reserve notes." It's a tax on "income" -- regardless of whether the income is legal or illegal, and regardless of the "form" of the income takes.

Yes, it's a tax on income, but my income is measured in the federal reserve's currency. How could it be lawful to force me to make a transaction in an illegal currency?

Nikki,

You can pay them via an electronic transfer, with a big pile of silver dollars, or with a simple accounting entry that offsets what the government owes you.

The first and third are just substitutes for actual physical notes. Same thing.

As for silver, where does it say that? Maybe that's true, I don't know.

However, since you process FRNs every day, why are you attempting to construct an absolutely absurd tax evasion strategyu based on a long past refuted argument?

Where has it been refuted? Like I have been arguing, just because the supreme court doesn't agree doesn't mean they are right.

The most likely scenario is that you have absolutely no clue about what you are saying...

Worst case scenario I'm just confused but sincerely curious.

Joey Smith,

No, you're wrong. It would be one thing if the courts ruled X and a substantial number of legal and constitutional scholars came out and criticized the courts for being wrong. But they haven't.... Why is that?

Again, this is an appeal to popularity and authority. Do you not recognize informal logical fallacies as been invalid lines of reasoning?

But I will answer your question. Large bodies of intellectuals have been grossly wrong about things before, e.g. Nazi Germany, the world being flat, and the earth being the center of the universe.

[Nikki]

...

As for silver, where does it say that? Maybe that's true, I don't know.
DUH !

...

Where has it been refuted? Like I have been arguing, just because the supreme court doesn't agree doesn't mean they are right.
See below

Actually, the Supreme Court, BY DEFINITION, is right. If you took the time to read the Constitution -- instead of reading your favorite Paytridiot web sites -- you would realize that the Constitution makes the Supreme Court the final arbiters of what is right (in a legal and Constutional sense) or not.

Just because you disagree with one of their decisions doesn't make them wrong. By definition and by the rule of law in this country, they are right.

If you are basing your arguments on your opinion that the Supreme Court is wrong, this thread should be moved to Ranting and Raving since your argument has absolutely no factual basis.

[Famspear]

framspear,

Under our legal system, the law literally is what the courts rule the law to be in an actual case or controversy.

You're just talking about a "living constitution" philosophy. That's the same as having no constitution. Is that really the intention of the framers?

I am talking about the U.S. legal system. I am telling you what the law is. Daniel B. Evans is also telling you what the law is. Whether it's the "intention of the framers" is not something for you to worry about. But as long as you asked - yes, it is the intention of the framers. They're the ones who gave us this system. This is a central reality that eats away at tax protesters. YES, THE SYSTEM THE TAX PROTESTERS HATE IS INDEED THE SYSTEM THAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED. The very fact that tax protesters argue that the framers did not "intend" us to have this system is itself evidence that the tax protesters either do not understand our legal system or that they do not want to accept our legal system.

Yes, it's a tax on income, but my income is measured in the federal reserve's currency. How could it be lawful to force me to make a transaction in an illegal currency?

No, no one is forcing you to "make a transaction in an illegal currency." First, the currency is legal. Second, no one is forcing you to use that currency. And third, the federal income tax is not required to be paid in that currency. Your argument is incoherent.

The first and third are just substitutes for actual physical notes. Same thing.

No, it does not matter whether the first and third are "just substitutes" for actual physical notes. And "substitutes" are not the "same thing."

Where has it been refuted? Like I have been arguing, just because the supreme court doesn't agree doesn't mean they are right.

Yes, the Supreme Court is right. Under our legal system, the law is what the courts rule the law to be.

Again, this is an appeal to popularity and authority. Do you not recognize informal logical fallacies as been invalid lines of reasoning?

No, this is another old, tired argument. The rule that the law is what the courts rule the law to be is not the logical fallacy of improper appeal to authority.

An example of a fallacious appeal to authority would be: "The laws of physics necessarily are "XXX" (fill in the blank) because Einstein said so." This is a fallacy; the laws of physics simply are what they are, completely independent of what Einstein says they are. Einstein may be right or wrong (right, probably). But the laws of physics do not "depend" on what Einstein says.

By contrast, under the U.S. legal system, the law literally is what the courts rule the law to be. That is not a "fallacy" of "appeal to authority." That is literally the system itself. When I say, "The law is XXX because every court has ruled the law to be XXX", I am not committing a logical fallacy. Indeed, I am following the rules of the logic of law under our legal system.

Again, the law -- secular, American, man-made law -- does not have some imaginary "existence" that is separate from the rules of the legal system itself. The law is not dependent upon some rules of logic that you may have learned in a high school or college logic class that are outside the rules of the U.S. legal system.

There is a "logic of law" and the rules that make up that logic are knowable and learnable, but you cannot know and learn those rules by reading tax protester arguments.

[Famspear]

Oh, and by the way, the rule that the law is what the courts rule the law to be is not the "living constitution" philosophy. You're thinking of something else. The rule --that the law is what the courts rule the law to be -- is an essential part of the English common law system, which is where our legal system came from. We were originally English colonies, remember? Look up terms like stare decisis and precedent and holding in a good legal dictionary. And look up terms like "common law" and "case law". The English common law system was/is primarily judge-made law.

Many tax protesters claim to know American law better than the judges and lawyers and legal scholars. The tax protesters are wrong.

[Joey Smith]

"But I will answer your question. Large bodies of intellectuals have been grossly wrong about things before, e.g. Nazi Germany, the world being flat, and the earth being the center of the universe."

And in all of those cases, large numbers of credible scholars stood up and told the powers-that-be at the time, "Hey, you're just totally wrong."

But that is not happening here; why?

When did the tax protestor loonies obtain the monopoly on knowledge?

BTW, nothing keeps you from paying your taxes in rolls of silver dollars, quarters, dimes, etc., or as others have pointed out in cutting a check.

[Famspear]

Dear user trianglechoke7:

By the way, let's set aside the rules of the logic of legal discourse for a moment. The argument you presented at the beginning of the thread is not valid under "ordinary" rules of logic, either. It's full of holes.

[RyanMcC]

BTW, nothing keeps you from paying your taxes in rolls of silver dollars, quarters, dimes, etc., or as others have pointed out in cutting a check.

Related Cartoon:
http://flickr.com/photos/jbacon_67/844548415/

[LPC]

Article 1, Section 8, cl. 5 states that congress has the authority to, "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."

Prior to the writing of the Constitution, the framers has experienced high inflation of the "Continental" dollar, a fiat paper money. Realizing that fiat currency posed such dangers, they wrote the aforementioned clause which refers to hard currency (gold and silver), because the term "coined" had a specific meaning in the 18th century. Looking at Article 1, Section 10, we see that if the framers had meant that congress could issue fiat currency, they could of used the term of the day, "bills of credit." Since the federal government does not have any powers not enumerated in the Constitution, it therefore does not have the authority to issue fiat currency, and by extension, delegate this authority to a private banking cartel.

Therefore, federal reserve notes are not legal currency, and since taxes are requested in federal reserve notes, taxes are not legal.

Everything follows but the "therefore."

Article I, Section 8, clause 5 declares that Congress has the power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof...." Without more that would seem to give Congress the power to declare that "federal reserve notes" are "money."

And Article I, Section 10, states that "No State shall .. coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts...."

That the power given to Congress "to coin Money" in section 8 was not limited to "gold and silver" and that Congress was not prohibited from emitting "Bills of Credit" bothsuggest that Congress was not limited in the way that the States were limited by Section 10.

Therefore, federal reserve notes are legal tender, just as the courts have repeatedly held for the last 100+ years.

And to understand that you don't need to do anything more than be able to read the Constitution and be able to understand the English language.

[TUC]

www.theunitedcities.org

TUC has notified the Public and particularly the enumerated parties herein and/or their agencies, each and every one of them, that THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK AND ITS SYSTEM are in default of the applicable U.S. laws and Statutes by allowing Notes and Mortgages contracts which are sold, as ASSETBACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES WITHOUT ANY INTRINSIC VALUE AS EXPLAINED in the affidavit filed in the public record in Larry Whaley Osceola County on May 1, 2007, file no: 2007084228. THERE ARE NO TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE ASSETS BACKING THESE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, from THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK AND ITS SYSTEM. ALL THE REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS involving typical mortgages and mortgage notes ARE FRAUDULENT, SINCE THE MONEY AND/OR UNIT NO LONGER HAS REAL PURCHASING VALUE for themselves, as stated in the website of the Department of the Treasury at http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/curr ... nder.shtml “…..Congress has specified that a Federal Reserve Bank must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Bank receives. This collateral is chiefly gold certificates and United States securities. This provides backing for the note issue. The idea was that if the Congress dissolved the Federal Reserve System, the United States would take over the notes (liabilities). This would meet the requirements of Section 411, but the government would also take over the assets, which would be of equal value. Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them. Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves…”
“If money does not have the value it purports to have on its face, it cannot be legal tender.” (Craig vs. Missouri, 29 U.S. 410) According to 12 USCS, Section 411, “. . . The [Federal Reserve Notes] shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, D.C., or at any Federal Reserve bank.”