Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Easter Leftovers, Rumba Flamenco, Rain at Top of the World, and My Destiny


In case you wondered, I have not yet managed to achieve my long-quested terrestrial escape.  I have endured long enough to enjoy the subjects of this message in whatever time my Master of the Universe Destiny has afforded me. 

Zeke, the name I have affectionately given my Thought Controller, our Heavenly Father’s ineffable pre-personal spirit fragment, since I don’t know that I know his number, does not seem to mind that I just polished off some delicious, honey-and-cinnamon-drenched chunks of Elbe’s Papaya.  Nor that Maria distracted me with them even before she slid the below plate of Easter leftovers onto my desk.

You see there a partially gobbled hunk of ham, fresh garden green beans simmered with garlic, tomatoes, and onions, and in the background a mound of pureed sweet potatoes graced with a pinch of allspice and a double pinch of freshly ground cinnamon.  You can’t see the blob of orangish habanero hot sauce that makes that ham oh-so-interesting.  It sits on the other side of the ham.

Don’t worry.  My belly now churns that plate of food toward ITs destiny. Minus the plate, of course.



Maybe Zeke, nestled cozily in his Permanent Pilot’s Chair somewhere in my mind, likes my enjoyment of the gentle rain falling at On Top of the World, where Maria and I live in Clearwater, Florida.  He might get a kick out of the punctuations of thunder here and there, and the faint whining of evening traffic on US Highway 19 half a mile over the trees outside our third-floor condo, kind at the “top” of “our” world.  I have attached another, similar rain below in case you want to lean back in your easy chair and meditate to its soothing cacophony.

Rain





Meanwhile I arm-dance in my computer chair to the beat of Rumba Flamenco from Putumayo. Here's  a sample for your listening and jiggle pleasure.  Now get up and dance.


Jiggle Music


I imagine you want to know whether Zeke dances in my mind.  Well, I guess he does, figuratively, every time I take a step in the direction of the eternal destiny he has in store for me.  I step that way more often as the days roll by.


No, I don’t have much of an inkling about that destiny, but I believe (for now) Zeke wants me to address the masses about the nature of God and the power of sincerity to make us indistinguishably like him.  He and my guardian angels have kept me safe from harm and let me live through a number of mishaps and would-be disasters, so they have not finished with me here.

Have they? 



 

 Bob Hurt  Home Page -Email - My Blog
2460 Persian Drive #70 - Clearwater, FL 33763 USA
+1 (727) 669-5511
Donate to my
 Law Scholarship Fund
Learn civil litigation with 
Jurisdictionary
Subscribe to 
Lawmen E-Letter FREE
Download 
Files FREE from the Lawmen Archive

Patriot Myth: Discharge a Criminal Sentence or Fine in Bankruptcy

The depth of patriot stupidity sometimes amazes me, and this issue constitutes no exception.  I just cannot believe it, though true.

 

Some Patriot Myth Monger (PMMs) has, idiotically, started spreading the Patriot Myth (PM) that criminals can discharge their sentences in bankruptcy court.  They cannot discharge sentences in bankruptcy.  So, get used to the idea.  To understand this, let us review some common sense principles:  crimes; the purpose of prison, probation, and parole;  the rights of people to enjoy relative freedom from criminals and, to some extent, the stupid.

 

See a list of such rights for Florida here:

 

http://leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes&CFID=165726961&CFTOKEN=98981683#A1S01

 

I like these, among others, from Article I of the Florida Constitution of 1968 as amended:

 

SECTION 2. Basic rights.—All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.

SECTION 21. Access to courts.—The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.

 

 

 

 

 

You may have noticed that the section 2 declarations doesn't guarantee the basic rights of people with mental disability.

 

In general, laws delineate certain behaviors that constitute crimes because they actually or potentially injure society in general or people or artificial persons in particular.  Law enforcers arrest people for such behaviors, prosecutors prosecute them in court, and a trier of fact (jury or judge) convicts those it finds guilty.  Courts sentence the guilty to some form of "inconvenience" in accordance with the law and sentencing guidelines. 

 

Generally, only serving-the-sentence will convince society, through the courts and law enforcers, that the guilty may then re-enter society more or less without much inconvenience.  But often parole and probation boards impose some remnant obligation or restriction on rights for those released from prison.  Why?  Because the guilty have proven that society cannot trust them to behave honorably and lawfully.  Thus, it makes sense to keep "on a short leash" certain convicted criminals who have served their sentence of "inconvenience".  This allows them to re-earn society's trust.

 

The inconvenience to the guilty can take a variety of forms, but it ALWAYS constitutes some form of "debt" that the guilty actually can pay.  Examples include living in exile, spending time (including slave labor) in some kind of prison or asylum, payment of a fiscal fine, performing community service, living in society under certain behavioral restrictions, restitution to the injured party, or some combination or sequence of these.

 

Prisons, including their wardens, guards, and other employees, serve a variety of purposes.  Primarily, they confine a criminal to prevent the criminal from committing crimes against society and essentially law-abiding, peaceable folks.  This allows such folks to enjoy their rights such as the two articulated above.  Prisons can also inflict punishment or torture on convicts, help convicts to reform so they will no longer engage in crimes if released into society, and provide a source of slave labor for the government or businesses, depending on the laws of the land.  Of course, they also earn a fortune for their shareholders, for they do operate as businesses.  And life in a prison can consist of torture and constitute grave danger to relatively peaceable inmates who fall victim to their more brutal and lawless fellows as well as prison employees.

 

The law provides no means for the guilty to discharge their "inconvenience" in bankruptcy court.  The Bankruptcy Code in 11 USC specifies that government will not discharge a debt for a tax "fine, penalty, or forfeiture payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit" in a bankruptcy proceeding.  See Section 523(a)(1)(C) 523 (a)(7) below.

 

United States Code TITLE 11 > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 523 Exceptions to discharge

(a) A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228 (a), 1228 (b), or 1328 (b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt—

(1) for a tax or a customs duty—

(A) of the kind and for the periods specified in section 507 (a)(3) or507 (a)(8) of this title, whether or not a claim for such tax was filed or allowed;

(B) with respect to which a return, or equivalent report or notice, if required—

(i) was not filed or given; or

(ii) was filed or given after the date on which such return, report, or notice was last due, under applicable law or under any extension, and after two years before the date of the filing of the petition; or

(C) with respect to which the debtor made a fraudulent return or willfully attempted in any manner to evade or defeat such tax;

(2) for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by—

(A) false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, other than a statement respecting the debtor's or an insider's financial condition;

(B) use of a statement in writing—

(i) that is materially false;

(ii) respecting the debtor's or an insider's financial condition;

(iii) on which the creditor to whom the debtor is liable for such money, property, services, or credit reasonably relied; and

(iv) that the debtor caused to be made or published with intent to deceive; or

(C)

(i) for purposes of subparagraph (A)—

(I) consumer debts owed to a single creditor and aggregating more than $500 for luxury goods or services incurred by an individual debtor on or within 90 days before the order for relief under this title are presumed to be nondischargeable; and

(II) cash advances aggregating more than $750 that are extensions of consumer credit under an open end credit plan obtained by an individual debtor on or within 70 days before the order for relief under this title, are presumed to be nondischargeable; and

(ii) for purposes of this subparagraph—

(I) the terms "consumer", "credit", and "open end credit plan" have the same meanings as in section 103 of the Truth in Lending Act; and

(II) the term "luxury goods or services" does not include goods or services reasonably necessary for the support or maintenance of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor.

(3) neither listed nor scheduled under section 521 (1) of this title, with the name, if known to the debtor, of the creditor to whom such debt is owed, in time to permit—

(A) if such debt is not of a kind specified in paragraph (2), (4), or (6) of this subsection, timely filing of a proof of claim, unless such creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for such timely filing; or

(B) if such debt is of a kind specified in paragraph (2), (4), or (6) of this subsection, timely filing of a proof of claim and timely request for a determination of dis­chargeability of such debt under one of such paragraphs, unless such creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for such timely filing and request;

(4) for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement, or larceny;

(5) for a domestic support obligation;

(6) for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity;

(7) to the extent such debt is for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit, and is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss, other than a tax penalty—

(A) relating to a tax of a kind not specified in paragraph (1) of this subsection; or

(B) imposed with respect to a transaction or event that occurred before three years before the date of the filing of the petition;

(8) unless excepting such debt from discharge under this paragraph would impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor's dependents, for—

(A)

(i) an educational benefit overpayment or loan made, insured, or guaranteed by a governmental unit, or made under any program funded in whole or in part by a governmental unit or nonprofit institution; or

(ii) an obligation to repay funds received as an educational benefit, scholarship, or stipend; or

(B) any other educational loan that is a qualified education loan, as defined in section 221(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, incurred by a debtor who is an individual;

(9) for death or personal injury caused by the debtor's operation of a motor vehicle, vessel, or aircraft if such operation was unlawful because the debtor was intoxicated from using alcohol, a drug, or another substance;

(10) that was or could have been listed or scheduled by the debtor in a prior case concerning the debtor under this title or under the Bankruptcy Act in which the debtor waived discharge, or was denied a discharge under section 727 (a)(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), or (7) of this title, or under section 14c(1), (2), (3), (4), (6), or (7) of such Act;

(11) provided in any final judgment, unreviewable order, or consent order or decree entered in any court of the United States or of any State, issued by a Federal depository institutions regulatory agency, or contained in any settlement agreement entered into by the debtor, arising from any act of fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity committed with respect to any depository institution or insured credit union;

(12) for malicious or reckless failure to fulfill any commitment by the debtor to a Federal depository institutions regulatory agency to maintain the capital of an insured depository institution, except that this paragraph shall not extend any such commitment which would otherwise be terminated due to any act of such agency;

(13) for any payment of an order of restitution issued under title 18, United States Code;

(14) incurred to pay a tax to the United States that would be nondischargeable pursuant to paragraph (1);

(14A) incurred to pay a tax to a governmental unit, other than the United States, that would be nondischargeable under paragraph (1);

(14B) incurred to pay fines or penalties imposed under Federal election law;

(15) to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor and not of the kind described in paragraph (5) that is incurred by the debtor in the course of a divorce or separation or in connection with a separation agreement, divorce decree or other order of a court of record, or a determination made in accordance with State or territorial law by a governmental unit;

(16) for a fee or assessment that becomes due and payable after the order for relief to a membership association with respect to the debtor's interest in a unit that has condominium ownership, in a share of a cooperative corporation, or a lot in a homeowners association, for as long as the debtor or the trustee has a legal, equitable, or possessory ownership interest in such unit, such corporation, or such lot, but nothing in this paragraph shall except from discharge the debt of a debtor for a membership association fee or assessment for a period arising before entry of the order for relief in a pending or subsequent bankruptcy case;

(17) for a fee imposed on a prisoner by any court for the filing of a case, motion, complaint, or appeal, or for other costs and expenses assessed with respect to such filing, regardless of an assertion of poverty by the debtor under subsection (b) or (f)(2) of section 1915 of title 28 (or a similar non-Federal law), or the debtor's status as a prisoner, as defined in section 1915 (h) of title 28 (or a similar non-Federal law);

(18) owed to a pension, profit-sharing, stock bonus, or other plan established under section 401, 403, 408, 408A, 414, 457, or 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, under—

(A) a loan permitted under section 408(b)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or subject to section 72(p) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or

(B) a loan from a thrift savings plan permitted under subchapter IIIof chapter 84 of title 5, that satisfies the requirements of section 8433(g) of such title;

but nothing in this paragraph may be construed to provide that any loan made under a governmental plan under section 414 (d), or a contract or account under section 403(b), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 constitutes a claim or a debt under this title; or

(19) that—

(A) is for—

(i) the violation of any of the Federal securities laws (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(47) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934), any of the State securities laws, or any regulation or order issued under such Federal or State securities laws; or

(ii) common law fraud, deceit, or manipulation in connection with the purchase or sale of any security; and

(B) results, before, on, or after the date on which the petition was filed, from—

(i) any judgment, order, consent order, or decree entered in any Federal or State judicial or administrative proceeding;

(ii) any settlement agreement entered into by the debtor; or

(iii) any court or administrative order for any damages, fine, penalty, citation, restitutionary payment, disgorgement payment, attorney fee, cost, or other payment owed by the debtor.

For purposes of this subsection, the term "return" means a return that satisfies the requirements of applicable nonbankruptcy law (including applicable filing requirements). Such term includes a return prepared pursuant to section 6020(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or similar State or local law, or a written stipulation to a judgment or a final order entered by a nonbankruptcy tribunal, but does not include a return made pursuant to section 6020(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or a similar State or local law.

(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, a debt that was excepted from discharge under subsection (a)(1), (a)(3), or (a)(8) of this section, under section 17a(1), 17a(3), or 17a(5) of the Bankruptcy Act, under section 439A [1]of the Higher Education Act of 1965, or under section 733(g) [1] of the Public Health Service Act in a prior case concerning the debtor under this title, or under the Bankruptcy Act, is dischargeable in a case under this title unless, by the terms of subsection (a) of this section, such debt is not dischargeable in the case under this title. 

(c)

(1) Except as provided in subsection (a)(3)(B) of this section, the debtor shall be discharged from a debt of a kind specified in paragraph (2), (4), or (6) of subsection (a) of this section, unless, on request of the creditor to whom such debt is owed, and after notice and a hearing, the court determines such debt to be excepted from discharge under paragraph (2), (4), or (6), as the case may be, of subsection (a) of this section.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the case of a Federal depository institutions regulatory agency seeking, in its capacity as conservator, receiver, or liquidating agent for an insured depository institution, to recover a debt described in subsection (a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(6), or (a)(11) owed to such institution by an institution-affiliated party unless the receiver, conservator, or liquidating agent was appointed in time to reasonably comply, or for a Federal depository institutions regulatory agency acting in its corporate capacity as a successor to such receiver, conservator, or liquidating agent to reasonably comply, with subsection (a)(3)(B) as a creditor of such institution-affiliated party with respect to such debt.

(d) If a creditor requests a determination of dischargeability of a consumer debt under subsection (a)(2) of this section, and such debt is discharged, the court shall grant judgment in favor of the debtor for the costs of, and a reasonable attorney's fee for, the proceeding if the court finds that the position of the creditor was not substantially justified, except that the court shall not award such costs and fees if special circumstances would make the award unjust.

(e) Any institution-affiliated party of an insured depository institution shall be considered to be acting in a fiduciary capacity with respect to the purposes of subsection (a)(4) or (11).

 

I won't broach the question of why America has upwards of 1% of its population incarcerated at any one time.  And I shall not explain why America doesn't provide a safer harbor for its 75,000.000 relatively stupid inhabitants who haven't the mojo or moxy to graduate from high school, let alone defend themselves against economic enslavement by the smart.  I'll save those issues for a future series of messages.

 

 

--

Description: Bob Hurt, Concerned

Bob Hurt        My Blog
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
Email; Call: (727) 669-5511
Law Studies: Donate   Subscribe
Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary

Description: cid:part2.09050001.09040003@bobhurt.com

 

 

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Debt-Based Currency

I thought you might enjoy this dialog between law philosophers John Wolfgram and Jon Roland on the subject of money.

 

 

Debt-based currency

 

Thread started: Monday, April 18, 2011 3:51 PM

 

Anything, including debt certificates, may be used as currency if it is accepted as such by most players in the market. The key to that acceptance is that the supply of it track the growth in economic production. Not the GDP, which calls it growth if two people who produced for themselves start trading the same products with one another without increasing the net amount produced. Arguably, it should also not include services, such as entertainment, that do not contribute to production. In other words, production of capital rather than consumption.

The problem with debt certificates is that there is no natural mechanism to hold down their supply, other than periodic market collapses. On the contrary, there are strong incentives on the part of both the public and private sector to magnify the supply of debt certificates. See what happened with securitization, which is still going on.

Note that congress has no constitutional authority to make anything legal tender on state territory. Only the states have that authority, and only to make gold or silver coin legal tender there. Congress may make federal reserve notes legal tender on federal territory, like the District of Columbia or various military bases and port facilities, under Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 17, but nowhere else. It can also accept FRNs for payment of debt to the federal government. What it may not do, contrary to the Legal Tender Cases, is compel anyone outside exclusive federal enclaves to accept FRNs or anything else in payment for debts. Every state that accepts FRNs as legal tender is violating the Constitution.

When the Federal Reserve creates "money" out of thin air and uses it to buy Treasury bonds to finance government expenditures, as it did in QE1 and QE2, it is doing several things. One is to use focused inflation to prop up prices of various investment vehicles, such as housing, bonds, stock, and securitized debt, which would otherwise fall. Contrary to popular belief, rising prices of oil and food are not the result of it, not yet. That will come, but those price rises are due to reduction in supply of oil and food, not an increase in the supply of currency.

There is a close relation between this kind of government financing with debt certificates and unemployment. Opponents of deficit reduction by reduced government spending fear the unemployment of government workers, and that would indeed happen. However, a debt-finance deficit also involves the creation of the money that goes to foreign governments ("sovereign wealth funds") that loan the money back to us, but also accumulate FRNs that drives currency exchange rates that favor the sale of their products to us, and the offshoring of U.S. jobs to them. For every government job maintained by continuing the deficit, there is a destruction or non-creation of at least five jobs in the private sector, about two off-shored and the rest layoffs or never created.

The entire federal deficit comes from only a few key programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unfunded government pensions, farm subsidies, and military spending. In trying to sustain the elderly, the ill, farmers, and our policing of the world, we are now at the brink of bringing down Western Civilization. This is not just a U.S. problem. The entire world has been following our lead and will fall with us. Within a year of the collapse, we may see unemployment of 90% everywhere, riots, looting, destruction of productive facilities, and hundreds of wars everywhere, some of them nuclear.

That outcome is not worth sustaining the elderly or the ill. If we have to choose, it is better to let them all die. Better them than most of the rest of the people on Earth. Those are our choices. Too many people are in denial that those are our choices. We will soon see, because at this point it is probably too late to prevent it.

-- Jon
 

 

What do you mean, Jon: "Note that congress has no constitutional authority to make anything legal tender on state territory."?  It certainly does have that authority.  It is the states that are limited in that respect, to making naught but gold or silver legal tender.  Art. I, Sec. 8, Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. And also Congress had the power to punish counterfieting the securities and current coin of the US.  There is nothing in Sec. 8 that would limit Congress powers to federal enclaves.  On the contraty, the Section 8 powers individually and collectively could not be exercise except as a federal government superimposed on the states ... each and all of them.
 
Wolf 

The powers to coin money and punish counterfeiting are not the power to make anything legal tender. The only way they get that power is in Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 17, for federal enclaves:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

And perhaps in Art. IV Sec 3 Cl. 2, for other non-state territories:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Time to unlearn more of what you were mis-taught in law school.

Jon

 

Gees Jon: Just because the Constitution also gives federal power to micro manage non state territories that have no other sovereign does not deny, and is not a basis to deny that Article I, section 8 grants certain federal powers over the states.  I forgot to mention that in addition to giving congress the power to coin money and punish counterfeiting, it also gives congress the power "to regulate the Value" of money.  That is the same section that also grants powers to regulate the value of foreign coin and fix the standards of weights and measures and over bankruptcies, to define and punish piracies, and declare war. 
 
Do you think that when the US declares war it does so only for Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico, and as to whether the states join in, it's all voluntary?  
 
I think that you are putting me on, Jon: Just trying to see if I'm senile yet, right?
 
Wolf

 

Of course not. There are several powers, most in Art. I Sec. 8, delegated to Congress to apply to individuals within the states. It is just that the power to make anything legal tender is not one of them. That is a distinct power that requires a distinct delegation.

 

Jon

 

I don't know what is debatable about this Jon.  Congress "shall have the power ... to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign Coin, ...
 
Are we talking about only "coin", as in "small change" or is "Coin" another name for the manufacture of money?  If congress can regulate the value of money, both foreign and domestic, how could doing that not be the creation legal tender.  Within the meaning of "Coin" could Congress have coined a brass slug and fixed the value as one dollar? It really doesn't matter.  There has been no ambiguity about this clause for 220 years and I rather doubt that you are going to create any now.  Nor is there any debate about the Constitution super imposing a federal government over the state government so that it could fix the standard of measures among them.
 
But to spread such rumors, to create constitutional debate where there is none is either designed to get people to research and think for themselves, or it defeats your educational goals for Constitution.org.
 
Wolf 
 

On 04/18/2011 07:29 PM,

I don't know what is debatable about this Jon.  Congress "shall have the power ... to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign Coin, ...

And that does not include the power to make anything legal tender. Coin may or may not be legal tender. Apples and oranges.

Wolf

 
Are we talking about only "coin", as in "small change" or is "Coin" another name for the manufacture of money? 

It literally only means pieces of metal. The Founders were very literal about powers. Rights may be interpreted broadly, but not powers.

1.       Potestas stricte interpretatur. A power is strictly interpreted.

2.      In dubiis, non præsumitur pro potentia. In cases of doubt, the presumption is not in favor of a power.

If congress can regulate the value of money, both foreign and domestic, how could doing that not be the creation legal tender. 

They are two entirely different kinds of things. That power to regulate foreign currency doesn't make foreign currency legal tender. That power to regulate is only the power to restrict how much gold or silver (or other metal) is in a coin, and the purity of it.

Delegations of power are definitely territorially confined. Legislative, like judicial and executive, jurisdiction is territorially confined. Except for "piracy and felonies on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations". That and jurisdiction over military and diplomatic personnel abroad are the only powers not confined territorially.

All the material in support of this is on our site. I have even sent you links on those very materials in years past. Did you read any of it?

Within the meaning of "Coin" could Congress have coined a brass slug and fixed the value as one dollar?

Not after the Seventh Amendment fixed the meaning of "dollar" to the coin known by that name at that time. Congress could call it something else, but not a "dollar".

It really doesn't matter.  There has been no ambiguity about this clause for 220 years and I rather doubt that you are going to create any now. 

Of course there has been. Paper as legal tender did not exist before the Union government after the War of Secession tried to force people to accept it for payment of the government's debts, then force people to accept the paper from the people paid by the government for those people's debts. That is what the Legal Tender Cases were all about, and that was a thoroughly corrupt and unconstitutional decision. Have you ever actually read them?

Nor is there any debate about the Constitution super imposing a federal government over the state government so that it could fix the standard of measures among them.
 
But to spread such rumors, to create constitutional debate where there is none is either designed to get people to research and think for themselves, or it defeats your educational goals for Constitution.org.

 

No, it fulfills them. Federal legal tender statutes (not laws) are unconstitutional, if applied to state territory, and always have been, like most other federal statutes. It doesn't matter how many people think otherwise. Truth and logic is not about popularity. As it happens, there are many scholars who agree with me, even it they don't have the courage to come out and say so. I certainly get plenty of support from them in private communications.


-- Jon

 

 

Yup, you are right Jon.  And since states are prohibited from making anything but gold and silver legal tender, we can't have any funny money, except private and foreign, and federal coin.  I guess that is the way it is.  There used to be federal money, backed by all the gold in fort knox.  But now there are just Frns ... federal ious ... securities, such as they are, but they are not money...but securities for the money borrowed by Congress on the credit of the United States, another section 8 power. 
 
I never thought of it that way Jon,  but ol FDR must have known what he was doing, getting rid of the unlawful money of the United States backed by Gold and putting us on the proper standard of Frns ... or WRS as they are otherwise known ..."Well Regulated Securities" for the US debt.     Funny why the states never picked up on making gold and silver legal tender like the fed made frns, one of its secuities, legal tender.  The states must have been happy wth the feds regulating the value of money, even if it was a usurpation. 
 
Yup, ol FDR finally put us on the right track getting rid of all of that unconstitutional federal money backed by gold and issuing instead, securities on our debt. :-)  
 
I guess the problem will go away as money goes digital.   All money will be private money then and the fed will simply act as an insurer ... which it is doing now, more or less.
 
Glad that you set me straight on that Jon.
 
Wolf 

 

On 04/18/2011 09:31 PM,

Funny why the states never picked up on making gold and silver legal tender like the fed made frns, one of its secuities, legal tender.  The states must have been happy wth the feds regulating the value of money, even if it was a usurpation. 

 

Wolf

 

Not funny at all. Politics, with a strong blend of bribery and intimidation, and an ignorant and passive public, which is likely to soon yield the most tragic period of history, far worse than the falls of the previous 20 civilizations.


-- Jon
 

 

I don't know Jon: A conservative such as your self coming to a conclusion that FDR took us off the gold standard to preserve the Constitution because the federalies did not have Constitutional authority to print gold backed notes is at least as funny as liberals mandating more federal give away programs in obedience to Christ's command to "love one another".
 
But then, when you think about it for awhile, it all seems logical.  Your idea that the feds have no constitutional authority to print money, only coins, would include gold backed notes, with or without a federal reserve bank, wouldn't it?  And Christ's command to love your neighbor as yourself would include sharing the wealth, wouldn't it?  You just have to think about it a little longer, Jon.  It will all appear natural in awhile.
 
Humph: And I thought that Karl Marx originated communism and now I find out that he was just following Christ's teaching.  And  China teaches us that communism, capitalism and free enterprise work better together than capitalism, libertarian freedom and democracy.
 
And traditional conservatism is as anti Christianity as modern communism is contrary to the teachings of Mao... and Lenen.
 
Jon, is this just rewriting history, or do we really have something here.  Could modern communism really embody workable economic  and political principles, or is what we see in China just a transitional stage from communism through free enterprise and capitalism to democracy ... and what is the "democracy" that emerges from that order.  The ancients say that democracy is intrinsically unstable, yet today, we bet the future of the world on its stability. ... or do we?  Democracy requires government accountability to the people under the law, doesn't it?  Is government unaccountability the leg of stability that the ancients didn't consider ... or are we in a passing phase into a real order of democracy with accountability ... and what about China,  could it be on the way to a new kind of communism that has a single communist party with accountability to the people ... or does accountability lead to democracy ... as a sham, or with accountability?
 
Is this kind of political re-orientation what Obama means by "change"?  Is this new order merely propaganda, or is it a new truth facing off with and over coming the established propaganda? 
 
Or maybe, the mere consideration of these questions is a sign of senility creeping in.
 
 
Wolf

 

On 04/19/2011 08:27 AM, John Wolfgram wrote:

Your idea that the feds have no constitutional authority to print money, only coins, would include gold backed notes, with or without a federal reserve bank, wouldn't it? 

The federal government can print gold or silver backed notes. Those are called "securities" in the Constitution. They just don't have the authority to make them legal tender. For that matter, they don't have the authority to make the gold or silver coins legal tender, either, on state territory. Only on territory under their exclusive legislative control, which excludes the states.

You seem not to be getting the concept of "legal tender". It means what someone with a judgment may be forced to accept in payment of that judgment. If A sues B for an injury or a debt, and gets a money judgment against B, that money judgment has to be denominated in legal tender, and A has to accept legal tender to pay the judgment. If silver coins called "dollars" have been made legal tender by the government with authority to declare legal tender, that would mean the judgment would have to be denominated in "dollars" and a would have to accept those silver coins from B.

Just because the federal government may mint coins or print notes backed by those coins doesn't automatically make them legal tender, and the power to mint is not the power to declare what is or is not legal tender. Nor is a state, which may not mint coins, obliged to make federally minted coins legal tender. It could make foreign or private minted coins, but not federal, legal tender, and some states did just that. Congress, on the other hand, exercised the powers of a state government on non-state territories, and once even declared Indian wampum to be legal tender in one of the territories for a while. But that was not in a state.

Most state constitutions originally had specific provisions delegating to their legislatures the power to declare legal tender. Some don't. The Texas Constitution does not, and at present Texas law vaguely refers to legal tender without declaring what it is, so technically there is no legal tender in the State of Texas. Judges just define it from one case to the next, on their own alleged authority, which, constitutionally, they don't have. (Indeed, The Texas Constitution does not enumerate legislative powers, which is a cogent reason to replace it.)

And Christ's command to love your neighbor as yourself would include sharing the wealth, wouldn't it? 

Love doesn't mean charity without limits, especially public charity, which involves forcefully taking from some to give to others.

You just have to think about it a little longer, Jon.  It will all appear natural in awhile.

I have thought about it long enough. Don't be patronizing.

Could modern communism really embody workable economic  and political principles, or is what we see in China just a transitional stage from communism through free enterprise and capitalism to democracy ...

Most Chinese themselves consider it transitional, and tolerate it only as long as the leaders are not too abusive of their power. Power eventually corrupts, and when it does, people rise up against it, as we see happening in several Middle Eastern and North African countries.

and what is the "democracy" that emerges from that order.  The ancients say that democracy is intrinsically unstable, yet today, we bet the future of the world on its stability. ... or do we? 

We bet on its righteousness. We only hope for its stability.

Democracy requires government accountability to the people under the law, doesn't it? 

It does, although that does not necessarily mean majoritarian voting. It could also mean supermajority voting, or decision by representative assemblies charged with specific issues, such as legislatures and juries.

Is government unaccountability the leg of stability that the ancients didn't consider ...

No. They did consider it. Things haven't changed that much since then.

or are we in a passing phase into a real order of democracy with accountability ...

Only if the people rise up and demand it with sufficient force that they prevail.

and what about China,  could it be on the way to a new kind of communism that has a single communist party with accountability to the people ... or does accountability lead to democracy ... as a sham, or with accountability?

Accountability comes from demands for it, not by a political system running on autopilot.

 
Is this kind of political re-orientation what Obama means by "change"? 

You'd have to ask him. At the moment it seems more plausible he is trying to destroy Western Civilization, whether he is aware of it or not.

Is this new order merely propaganda, or is it a new truth facing off with and over coming the established propaganda?

Mostly propaganda.

 
Or maybe, the mere consideration of these questions is a sign of senility creeping in.

You should have a physician check you.


-- Jon

 

 

What you claim as "legal tender" as required to pay a damage judgment is indeed a change from old law.  In the old days a judgment for damages followed rule of an "eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".   If there were not such thing as legal tender, could a damaged person demand application of Hammurabi's law?
 
In any event, even if you were right that Section eight with all of its references to federal control over money was not specific enough to give it the power to declare the measure of value for legal tender, you would still be wrong under the principle that the greater contains the lesser.  As your example makes clear, if we are not to revert to Hammurabi's law, there must be a common standard by which to determine and pay debts.   So, what we need is a standard measure for such things, which the government has supplied with "legal tender". 
 
Does the government have that authority?
 
Not only does Article I, Sec 8, Cl. 5 give Congress the power to coin Money, regulate its value and the value of foreign coin, but it also gives Congress the power to "fix the standard of weights and measures" which in this case is the "dollar" as a standard by which to measure value.
 
I'm not sure that a gold backed note is a "security".  In common sense, the gold is the "security" for the note.  Not the other way around.  The note is the pledge of the gold.  Whether gold notes are or are not "securities" within the meaning of the Constitution, it is clear that such is a broad sweeping term that includes many other documents evidencing value.
 
Wolf

 

 

On 04/19/2011 11:31 AM, John Wolfgram wrote:

As your example makes clear, if we are not to revert to Hammurabi's law, there must be a common standard by which to determine and pay debts.   So, what we need is a standard measure for such things, which the government has supplied with "legal tender".

The regulatory power of Congress is goes to quantity of precious metal in a coin, or its purity. It can require that that a coin denominated a "dollar" contain at least 371.25 grains of pure silver, or 416 grains of silver of standard (coin grade) purity, as the first Coinage Act of 1792 did. Note that that Act makes no mention of "legal tender" or any term synonymous with it.

 
Does the government have that authority?

To prescribe the weight and purity, yes. To make legal tender on state territory, no.

 
Not only does Article I, Sec 8, Cl. 5 give Congress the power to coin Money, regulate its value and the value of foreign coin, but it also gives Congress the power to "fix the standard of weights and measures" which in this case is the "dollar" as a standard by which to measure value.

But that does not make it legal tender.

 
I'm not sure that a gold backed note is a "security".  In common sense, the gold is the "security" for the note.  Not the other way around.  The note is the pledge of the gold.  Whether gold notes are or are not "securities" within the meaning of the Constitution, it is clear that such is a broad sweeping term that includes many other documents evidencing value.

In the context of Art. I Sec. 8 "securities" were something that could be counterfeited. The quantity of gold backing a note can't be counterfeited, although particular coins might be. The notes themselves can be counterfeited, and often were.


-- Jon

 

 

Wolf, Jon and Other significant Citizens - My cable is off and as a result I starting using my antenna again and found to my surprise that over-the-air channels are broadcasting multiple digital channels on their assigned frequency.  As I have shuffled through them I found an English Language version of CHINA NEWS.  What I learned today was startling!!!

    Inflation in CHINA is devastating the population.  Wages are not rising but food, housing and transportation prices are up 50% and more over the last two months.  People are buying less food as a result.

    The Government is said to be raising interest rates to combat the inflating money but as they do that it stiffles economic growth, a purely Keynsian Economic Problem with Governments which issue paper money [which is every government now].

    If CHINA raises interest rates the building boom will slow and unemployment will ensue.  Already Dissidents are critizing government policy and they are being held in jail/prison without hearings or communication. 

   One such popular artist/dissident is a guy name AY [Pronounced 'I'].  When the cameras showed the protestors demanding AY's release, there were many WHITE PEOPLE holding "Release AY" signs.  None of them talked on Camera so I couldn't tell whether they were Aussies, Brits, Canadians or USA residents.  It is a classic destablization tactic of the CIA to protest and support protestors to topple governments, along with more direct tactics like the recent bombing of Gaddafis living quarters by Patriot missles.

     I see the hand of the USA in trying to get the Chinese to revalue the Yuan.  The USA has been trying for decades to get the Chinese to revalue the Yuan upward but the Chinese refuse in order to gain their labor advantage, as the japanese did in the 20th century after WWII.

    I don't remember the channel but I will note it and send it to you all so you too can share in the REAL NEWS.

 

- Brad H, JD

 

 

 

 

Description: Description: Bob Hurt photo - see me at http://bobhurt.com.  Here I tell about bad water, nasty water, and Rainsoft water treatment systems.

Bob Hurt  Home Page -Email - My Blog

2460 Persian Drive #70 - Clearwater, FL 33763 USA
+1 (727) 669-5511
Donate to my
 Law Scholarship Fund
Learn civil litigation with
Jurisdictionary
Subscribe to
Lawmen E-Letter FREE
Download
Files FREE from the Lawmen Archive

 

Confidentiality Notice. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Ch.119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq., governs distribution of this “Message,” including attachments. The originator intended this Message for the specified recipients only; it may contain the originator’s confidential and proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies unintended recipients that they have received this Message in error, and strictly proscribes their Message review, dissemination, copying, and content-based actions. Recipients-in-error shall notify the originator immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. Authorized carriers of this message shall expeditiously deliver this Message to intended recipients.  See: Quon v. Arch.

Wireless Copyright Notice.  Federal and State laws govern copyrights to this Message.  You must have the originator’s full written consent to alter, copy, or use this Message.  Originator acknowledges others’ copyrighted content in this Message.  Otherwise, Copyright © 2010 by originator Bob Hurt, bob at bobhurt dot com, http://bobhurt.com.  All Rights Reserved.