Legal Definition of a Dollar

[Judge Roy Bean]

The "someone" who has gone on ad nauseum will soon respond ad nauseum.

[LegalEagleMan]

Both "money" and the "dollar" are both defined, see Constitution. Congress can't redefine anything in the Constitution. That has been well settled.

Congress has the authority to set the value of with weights and measures, that is it... they can't make a pumpkin a dollar anymore than I can make a pumpkin turn into a carriage for Cinderella to ride around in. I guess Congress can in the mean time by statute create real live skittle farting unicorns that can fly.

Code: Select all

While someone may want a law defining what a dollar is, it is pointless and nonsensical, apart from its construction. Why? 

The dollar has been defined for well over 200 years. What is pointless is thinking someone has the authority to redefine.

[jkeeb]

It appears I lost my copy of the Constitution, Legal Eagle. Could you quote from it the definitions of dollar and money?

[LegalEagleMan]

I believe the confusion is that other things can in fact be worth something. Just because there is forms of credit that can be exchanged for goods and services does not and never could make them dollars or money. Although they can trade and be exchanges as money is, "money" is still the standard as regulated by Congress.

At the end of the day, Congress has the authority:

"To borrow money on the credit of the United States;"
Credit is not money, see above.

"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
Regulate standards of "money" by fixed weights and measures.

They certainly have the right to borrow money on credit and regulate money. And they can certainly hope people use this form of "credit" as one would "money" but at the end of the day it's not "money". If you have any questions I am sure your Congressman will forward the appropriate information, most probably the information will come from the Congressional Research Service.

If they tell you a "money" can me non-bearing promissory note or the "dollar" means non-bearing promissory note, please post it because that is not what they are telling everyone else. Most of this is moot anyway, to me most of what is in the Constitution is null and void for breach of contract, than fall back to the Declaration of Independence for guidance.

[LegalEagleMan]

It appears I lost my copy of the Constitution, Legal Eagle. Could you quote from it the definitions of dollar and money?

You don't need it, their words are set in stone by the Constitution. The words are set by their intent, the words can not be redefined.

"Money" was never defined as "credit" or "paper" or anything else back then. You can go read all about if you like, you can contact your Congressman as well.

[Pottapaug1938]

It appears I lost my copy of the Constitution, Legal Eagle. Could you quote from it the definitions of dollar and money?

You don't need it, their words are set in stone by the Constitution. The words are set by their intent, the words can not be redefined.

"Money" was never defined as "credit" or "paper" or anything else back then. You can go read all about if you like, you can contact your Congressman as well.

So what? That was then, and this is now. The 1787 definition of money is of historical importance only, because Congress has the power to coin money and to regulate its value. This means that they can, if they wish (and they have wished) change the value of a dollar. Had they wished to define a dollar as, say, so many grains of gold or silver, they could have done so; but they were trying to create a living document that could serve generations yet unborn, and in this they succeeded. Had they not done so, we would be continuously face dwith the need to amend the Constitution to make an 18th century document work in the 21st century.

Even when our coins contained gold and silver, the specifications were changed on more than one occasion, as a reading of the "Whitman Red Book" will disclose. That, in and of itself, is proof that Congress, over the years, has not stuck to a 1787 definition of a dollar, but has changed it to meet the needs of the society of the time.

[LegalEagleMan]

So what? That was then, and this is now. The 1787 definition of money is of historical importance only, because Congress has the power to coin money and to regulate its value. This means that they can, if they wish (and they have wished) change the value of a dollar.

Well, I guess you can say that for the whole document. Null and void as far as I am concerned.

At the end of the day, they (Congress) can set the value of "money" with weights and measures as standards. They have no authority to make something money that was not "money" at the time of the Constitution.

value of a dollar

They do not set the value of the dollar they regulate the value of "money". They cannot redefine the "dollar" or "money", although they are authorized to regulate the value of "money". I really don't know what else there is talk about on this subject. You can wish pieces of paper were "money", you can even trade them like they are "money", at the end of the day they are not "money".

[MSA]

Both "money" and the "dollar" are both defined, see Constitution.

You don't need it, their words are set in stone by the Constitution. The words are set by their intent, the words can not be redefined.

"Money" was never defined as "credit" or "paper" or anything else back then. You can go read all about if you like, you can contact your Congressman as well.

Wow.

[Lambkin]

So what? That was then, and this is now. The 1787 definition of money is of historical importance only, because Congress has the power to coin money and to regulate its value. This means that they can, if they wish (and they have wished) change the value of a dollar.

Well, I guess you can say that for the whole document. Null and void as far as I am concerned.

OK then I guess it's game over for you. Good luck getting anyone who matters to agree with your interpretation. Since it's not going your way, what next for you? As I see it you can either give up or escalate, either way being a losing proposition.

[LegalEagleMan]

Wow.

Wow what? Afraid to put your toe in the cold water?

You are hinting at that someone can redefine that which has already been defined and settled. I truly would love to know.

[LegalEagleMan]

OK then I guess it's game over for you. Good luck getting anyone who matters to agree with your interpretation. Since it's not going your way, what next for you? As I see it you can either give up or escalate, either way being a losing proposition.

So, I guess the opposite is Congress does not have the authority to regulate the value of "money" and does not have the authority to set standards with weights and measures.

That the words in the Constitution can be redefined by the whim of who know what and are not settled.

This is truly beating a dead horse when all you can say is "interpretation". There is no "interpretation" going on at all.. they either have authority or they don't. If you want to say they don't fine by me, I think there might be some people in DC that might disagree.

[Lambkin]

This is truly beating a dead horse when all you can say is "interpretation". There is no "interpretation" going on at all.. they either have authority or they don't. If you want to say they don't fine by me, I think there might be some people in DC that might disagree.

The people with the authority (ie, 3 branches of government sitting today) don't see it your way. I'm sure you're not surprised by this. I don't see how you can win your little war against our judicial system that disagrees with you about the law. If they ignore you completely, there's basically nothing you can do about it. Please explain the scenario under which you win this one.

[LegalEagleMan]

The people with the authority (ie, 3 branches of government sitting today) don't see it your way. I'm sure you're not surprised by this. I don't see how you can win your little war against our judicial system that disagrees with you about the law. If they ignore you completely, there's basically nothing you can do about it. Please explain the scenario under which you win this one.

I am not trying to win anything. All you crazy people will be hacking each other up by the time this is all over with. There is nothing for me to win but there is certainly a ton you will lose.

Contract your Congressman, you will get back from him nearly exactly what I have told you. If you get something completely different that says Congress can do whatever the hell they want... please post it. Of course they can do whatever the hell they want... that is how all contracts are broken. No contract stands the test of time, they all fail.

[MSA]

I am not trying to win anything. All you crazy people will be hacking each other up by the time this is all over with. There is nothing for me to win but there is certainly a ton you will lose.

There's inflation for you. Used to be just a pound of flesh that you'd lose.

[Famspear]

All you crazy people will be hacking each other up by the time this is all over with.

I'm not really following this closely, but I keep seeing this kind of language.

This is empty rhetoric.

[LegalEagleMan]

All you crazy people will be hacking each other up by the time this is all over with.

I'm not really following this closely, but I keep seeing this kind of language.

This is empty rhetoric.

No, rhetoric was when he said "I" would lose.

When the credit system collapses completely only than will you see until then believe what you want to believe.

[LPC]

We're being deluged by morons.

[Famspear]

All you crazy people will be hacking each other up by the time this is all over with.

I'm not really following this closely, but I keep seeing this kind of language.

This is empty rhetoric.

No, rhetoric was when he said "I" would lose.

When the credit system collapses completely only than will you see until then believe what you want to believe.

No, pal. What I am saying is that what you're saying is empty rhetoric.

You may have an idea in your head about something that you believe is going to happen in the future. You might be right about your idea about what you believe going to happen in the future. So what?

Being right is not enough.

Your words -- the words I quoted -- are empty rhetoric.

[LegalEagleMan]

No, pal. What I am saying is that what you're saying is empty rhetoric.

You may have an idea in your head about something that you believe is going to happen in the future. You might be right about your idea about what you believe going to happen in the future. So what?

Your words -- the words I quoted -- are empty rhetoric.

You didn't seem to have a problem with what might happen in the future when the other guy was "believing" it. I would say your words are empty rhetoric, it's clear you really don't mean what you say. The guy clearly asked, "Please explain the scenario under which you win this one." You don't like the answer, it really is too bad for you. You didn't seem to mind one bit when the other guy was saying "he couldn't see how I would win".

I guess when all else fails we can have word battles, not my kind of thing, I would rather see all you guys hacking away at each other, much more entertaining that is for sure.

Have a good nite, time for this One to go to bed.

[Famspear]

No, pal. What I am saying is that what you're saying is empty rhetoric.

You may have an idea in your head about something that you believe is going to happen in the future. You might be right about your idea about what you believe going to happen in the future. So what?

Your words -- the words I quoted -- are empty rhetoric.

You didn't seem to have a problem with what might happen in the future when the other guy was "believing" it.

No, you have me confused with another participant here. I haven't been following this.

I would say your words are empty rhetoric, it's clear you really don't mean what you say.

No, it's not "clear." See my prior comment.

The guy clearly asked, "Please explain the scenario under which you win this one." You don't like the answer, it really is too bad for you. You didn't seem to mind one bit when the other guy was saying "he couldn't see how I would win".

No, see my prior comment.

I guess when all else fails we can have word battles, not my kind of thing, I would rather see all you guys hacking away at each other, much more entertaining that is for sure.

Have a good nite, time for this One to go to bed.

Ah, yes. Word battles. Now you're saying that you would rather see other people hacking away at each other. In a sense, this is your hope for the future.

In every utterance a speaker or writer unknowingly tells us a great deal about himself of which he is entirely unaware.

--Walter C. Langer, The Mind of Adolf Hitler: The Secret Wartime Report, p. 147 (Basic Books Inc. 1972)