That applies only to minting currency for the state. I do not believe any states have exercised that right - at least not since the Fed in 1913.
That applies only to minting currency for the state. I do not believe any states have exercised that right - at least not since the Fed in 1913.
I am sure I may be missing something, but, I don't see it in regards 'minting.' Article 1 Section 10.1 forbids the States from making anything but gold or silver a legal tender. I imagine, 'making' can be equated w/ 'minting' but can also be read as 'allowing', etc. What the states 'have made' 'legal tender' is FRNs, this is not what is required by Art 1 Sect 10....Originally Posted by David Merrill
The Constitution forbids the federal government from making decisions regarding legal tender, since it is not authorized to do so. By default, it is a lack of authorization which prohibits the federal government from doing so, but, back to the states.
Refer to amendments 9 & 10. Basically, anything that the federal government is not authorized to do is a right of the States or the people UNLESS the States are forbidden, which in this case they are as per Article 1 Section 10.1
On the one hand, the federal government is prohibited from printing fiat money since there is no specific authorization for it in the Constitution. On the other, the States are also prohibited from printing (your minting) fiat currency because Article 1 Section 10.1 limits States to only using gold or silver as money. So, neither the federal government nor the state governments are authorized to coin money or emit bills of credit. The only thing that is allowed under the Constitution is for states too make gold and silver "a tender in payment of debts". ....so, back to question which perhaps seems rather simple to my simple mind but;
"How can any corporation register in any of the states when the states can only accept gold and silver?" when...there is no gold or silver. In fact, how can any state charge for anything when they are explicitly prohibited from doing so unless it is gold or silver coin?
I am speaking to your citation:
§10. Powers denied individual states. (1) No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation; grant letters of marque or reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
"§10. Powers denied individual states. (1) No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation; grant letters of marque or reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. "
all right...I try again..... a state cannot (a) coin money (b) make anything but (gold and silver) coin a tender of payment, etc. So, the silver-gold they have no authority to coin comes from outside the state AND be the only tender of payment made. If there is no such coin available, then, the state cannot make "tender...payment" period. Has this inability to tender payment by a state been challenged? What were to happen?...curious.
also see:
http://www.constitutionaltender.com/
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ency-bills.php
Last edited by hvncb; 07-27-11 at 11:58 AM.
Any news on the case of this thread? Any action on the motion to dismiss by the bank attorners?
Thanks for asking!!
This Response in fact, just in on Monday.
It looks childish in its simplicity. Something Jesus said comes to mind...
Thank you for the update, David.
I'm still not sure if he demonstrated an injury. I wonder if this man is shooting from the hip.
Last edited by Richard Earl; 07-28-11 at 03:51 AM.
Thank you for the update, David.
I'm still not sure if he demonstrated an injury. I wonder if this man is shooting from the hip.
The judge is telling him that. Scott Gregory had until the 2nd to file his Reply, yet the Judge says the Motion was Ripe yesterday:
Me thinks the judge may be a closet PAUL.
Well, seems that went no where. Shame.
I wrote an email to Scott Gregory in time for him to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. He wrote back explaining that he intended to dissolve the thread as a private attorney general. Without responding or being responsive, in this case he was asking for the Dismissal.
For hundreds of cases with the LoR, the petitioner goes in knowing the case will be dismissed. That is because these judges are taxpayers and therefore not judges. The proposition is that the suitor become a court of competent jurisdiction. Before dismissal though, there is a Refusal for Cause process that makes it clear any authority from the taxpayer's utterances is rejected.
So I doubt that was Scott Gregory's strategy. He needed to establish he had standing and did not. He never described any injury to himself from the action or inaction of the Atlanta Fed. I have written him to try salvaging the case before the initial deadline.
If he goes in, or rather would have gone in as a man, injured, without title then he might have convinced the judge he had a qui tam style of class action and proceeded with standing for all of us. A man without title (Surname) can be viewed as having the same needs - eat, sleep and excrete - as everybody else - a class of humanity.
What I implore you consider, if you would like to salvage this cause is to drop the Title BEACH.
From Robert VINING’s Legal Identity; The Coming of Age of Public Law if you were to become a man, without Title, then you might proceed qui tam as you like, private attorney general. A class action.
You will also have to describe how you/we have been injured by elastic currency and the reconciliation of the United States note with Federal Reserve note. I think you might have a chance if you get it postmarked by Monday. If not, you would at least get it in the record?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
