America's Path

[Guest]

I will ask again,

WHERE in the constitution does it give the federal government the power to create Welfare, or social security, or medicare.

You are dodging the question, state the article of the constitution that gives the federal government the power to do that.

Where is it?

You say that you believe this, but with what? what article of the constitution tells you that your view is correct?

And not only did you ignore the real question, you also mistated what Madison said.

You said

quote:

---

Oh, and just because Madison says he doesn't support the government giving charities, doesn't mean that its unconstitutional.

---

What did Madison say?

quote:

---

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

---

He said that the article in the constitution that allowed Congress to be benevolent with their constituents money DID NOT exist.

Hello, it was NOT his opinion, he was stating that the power to do that WAS NOT THERE!! it does NOT exist within the constitution.

[ 12-19-2002, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[scorchedearth]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalshion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blerm:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalshion:

Has anyone notice'd that how our country *USA* is not doing a damn thing to stop illigel imigation...

...I have proof about this happening...

---

If you have proof, please notify the proper authorites... I am POSITIVE they will take care of it. "*USA*" is you... help us out, dude! Don't be one of the ones that do nothing. Inform the proper authorities.

---

Ok.. but who?

---

You can write them at:

U.S.A. Immigration Services

2020 Pennsylvania Avenue NW #610

Washington, DC 20006

U.S.A.

or, via the web,

http://www.fairus.org/html/illegal.html

or call, depending on where you live,

http://www.fairus.org/html/04104903.htm (in MA, one would call (617) 565-3100 )

...and in spirit of quoting...

quote:

---

Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or

Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or

Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;

has committed a federal crime.

---

[ 12-19-2002, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: Blerm ]

[weegee_101]

Article 1. Section 7.

Congress can create laws. Welfare is a service created through a law.

Article 1. Section 8.

Congress can tax us for debts that it has. The money spent on a service is a debt.

I'm done. Don't expect me to reply again.

[Guest]

You are absolutely frightening.

The constitution LIMITS the power of the Federal government, the ONLY entities actually allowed to have Welfare, SSI, Medicare etc, are the states venue, not the federal government.

AGAIN, I ask you, WHERE in the constitution does it allow the Federal government to create Welfare, SSI, and Medicare.

Article one section 7 tells congress how it can pass laws, NOT what laws it can pass.

Aticle 1 section 8, tells the congress what it can do, do you see welfare in there, how about SSI, what about medicaid? If it ain't in there, the federal government CANNOT do it.

Here, let me make it easy for you. Long article, but well worth the read, and you will read it, if you actually care about the truth.

quote:

---

Constitutional Economics 101:

General Welfare or Enumerated Powers?

By Judd W. Patton

We, the American people, have great reverence for the U.S. Constitution, but according to surveys, we know tragically little about this awesome document. Many of us are freedumb, according to my friend, poet Nino D’Agosta.

Freedumb people, Nino says, neither understand freedom nor respect the original intent of the founding fathers, who, in the Preamble to the Constitution, ordained and established a government to “promote the general Welfare,” and “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

During the four-month Constitutional Convention of 1787, they hammered out a document to enumerate the role of government. They set the bar high. “Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the event is in the Hand of God,” George Washington said at the time.

A Clear Choice

In the year 2000, we Americans have a clear choice. We can restore the original precepts and value system, which formed the moral underpinnings of our Nation—as expressed in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, i.e., “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” or we can continue down the road to omnipotent government.

How did the founders define the role for the Federal government? Was the Constitution a pliable “living document,” subject to constant reinterpretation by elected leaders and the courts, or would the enumerated and specific powers of government be changeable only through a cumbersome Amendment process? Clearly, it was the latter.

What is Liberty?

Our Founders understood that liberty consists of economic freedom, i.e., a free-market economy, which in turn is fundamentally dependent on political and moral freedoms. In short, we will only remain a free society as long as Constitutional government principles and Godly precepts are alive in our hearts and minds. Thus, economic freedom can only flourish to the extent that tyrannical government is limited and solid values are maintained.

Our Constitution was intended to provide political freedom by strictly limiting and specifying the powers of government.

“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution,” said Thomas Jefferson.

The principle of enumerated powers was to be our main defense from dictatorship. Yet, the enumerated powers of Constitutional government alone are insufficient to attain and maintain liberty. Lord Acton, renowned English historian, captured this essential concept of moral freedom when he said that, “Liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right of being able to do what we ought.” John Adams, our second President, said it even more plainly: “Our Constitution was only made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

“Chains” of the Constitution

Our Founders enumerated and delegated about 20 specific powers to Congress as listed in Article I, Section 8. These clearly defined political freedom by articulating the chains on the Federal government.

Congress has the power to: 1. Lay and collect taxes in order to pay the debts and provide for the “common Defense” and “general Welfare” of the nation, 2. Borrow money on the credit of the United States, 3. Regulate commerce, 4. Establish rules for citizenship, 5. Establish bankruptcy laws, 6. Coin and regulate the value of money, 7. Standardize weights and measures, 8. Punish counterfeiting of U.S. securities and coins, 9. Establish post offices and post roads, 10. Pass copyright and patent laws, 11. Establish federal courts, 12. Punish crimes on the high seas, 13. Declare war, 14. Raise and finance the armed forces, 15. Establish rules for organizing, arming and disciplining the armed forces, 16. Call up state militias to execute the laws of the nation, suppress insurrections and repel invasions, 17. Administer the seat of government, 18. Administer federal lands, and 19. Make all laws that shall be necessary and proper for execution of the foregoing powers (so-called implied powers).

Much of what our government does today is unconstitutional! Congress has no Constitutionally derived power to fund education, establish retirement programs, nationalize health care, or redistribute income among Americans through welfare, food stamps or farm subsidies.

Unfortunately, substantial numbers of Americans have become dependent on such programs, and more are being proposed every day. An appropriate response to adding more new programs, for example, a national health care system, would be: “That’s an interesting idea but there’s no point in debating it. There are no Constitutional grounds for such legislation. Read Article I, Section 8. You need to begin by first amending the Constitution.”

General Welfare Clause

The incredulous response to this might be: “But the “general welfare” clause in the Preamble permits the Congress to pass legislation for health care, student loans, child care, foreign aid, farm handouts, environmental regulation and so on.”

In 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall said:

the federal government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers… The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it…is now universally admitted.”

Maybe in Marshall’s day, but not now.

Today, many members of Congress and ordinary citizens view our Constitution as a “living document.” Its well-conceived rules (or powers) and limitations can be reinterpreted or ignored altogether in the pursuit of utopian legislation, all in the name of the “general welfare” of the nation.

How about a baseball game with “living rules?” To promote the general welfare of the game, the umpire arbitrarily declares that the losing team gets four outs per inning until they catch up! Such favoritism and “living rules” would surely destroy the game for lack of interest.

Likewise, the concept of our Constitution as a “living document”—that it means whatever those in power interpret it to mean—is contrary to the original intent of the Framers and renders our Constitution essentially meaningless. Advocates of this viewpoint should, as a matter of honesty, call for a new Constitutional Convention and offer the following proposal for Article I, Section 8: “Congress shall promote the General Welfare.” Period. In light of what has happened, it’s a shame the original founders wasted four months of their lives debating the powers of government.

The original intent of our Constitution was to chain, or limit, the power and role of government so as to promote liberty and facilitate prosperity (general welfare).

After all, liberty, not well-intentioned politicians with special-interest legislation, is the true source of the general welfare!

Without solid Constitutional constraints, the good intentions of those in power can lead to oppressive or dictatorial control (one definition of fascism) which chains the people rather than the government.

Conclusion

Our Founders gave us a Constitutional Republic, not fascism, or a “living document” or even a democracy. The Constitution clearly specifies certain powers and responsibilities to government. Only through the Amendment process can the Constitution be considered a “living document.”

Congress and the President are, according to Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution, “bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…” and to “preserve, protect, and defend” it. Surely if they were living up to their oath, we would not have a National Debt in excess of $5,600,000,000,000 and an annual budget of $1,800,000,000,000.

What to do? Ultimately, “We, the people” need to contemplate the price, the value, and the vulnerability of our liberty. As active, engaged citizens, we should maintain the high standard Washington and other Framers set, being diligent, wise and honest, and leaving the rest in God’s hands. In that vein, we should pray for our leaders (I Timothy 2:2).

---

You need to quit believing and start LEARNING!!

READ the facts, instead of wishing for something that does not exist. ANd thank god it didn't exist until about 75 years ago, or we would not be here, it takes a bit longer then that to destroy us, but if we don't turn it around, this country will be another 3rd world country, trying to figure out what the hell happened.

It is people like you, that do not have clue what the constitution means or says, that is going to destroy us all that much faster.

If you REALLY want to KNOW the truth, then go here and read it. You will find it fascinating, just because it tells you that I am right, should be NO reason for you not to read it and learn from it.

I am a constitutionalist, I KNOW THE CONSTITUTION, if you try and question me, I will answer in what the FOUNDING FATHERS actually intended, not the wishful thinking of liberals and socialists who would like nothing better then to flush the constitution down the toilet.

I also KNOW the constitution, I have studied it deeply and in FULL. I have studied EACH of the founding fathers, I have studied Consitutional law.

When I say the constitution means something, I assure you, that is EXACTLY what it means.

I really wish you would read the constitution, instead of reading into the constitution.

Words MEAN things, this is not a question of the meaning of the word "is".

The constitution means what it says, and should be read as the founders intended, not as you wish they would have intended.

Draconis, where are you in this debate? I know that you KNOW exactly what the constitution means, how about giving me some help here?

[ 12-19-2002, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[DraconisRex]

Well, isn't it nice to know that the money you spend on gasoline and cigarettes is illegally taxed. Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 5 (of the original Constitution) says:

quote:

---

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

---

I've always thought of cigarettes as an article, and gasoline is usually imported from other states (which means it was exported.) Excuse me, but if I'm reading this paragraph correctly, it's saying that excise taxes are illegal. To my knowledge, that law hasn't changed.

If this is the case, I want to thank the US Congress in helping me break the Law of the Constitution every time I put gas in my car, and light up (one of my last vices.)

Comments?

[DraconisRex]

Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 1 states:

quote:

---

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and 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.

---

Pay particular attention to the part I put in bold -- that means that dollar bills are not legal tender, especially since they are no longer backed by gold and/or silver.

Comments?

[Guest]

Draconis,

please read my edited post above.

comments?

[Raven]

How about we change the emphasis here and see if it makes a little better sense.

quote:

---

No state

shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and 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.

---

I don't see any states printing paper money, do you?

[Charles Lindsey]

Jaguar

quote:

---

I am a constitutionalist, I KNOW THE CONSTITUTION, if you try and question me, I will answer in what the FOUNDING FATHERS actually intended,

---

"Intended" isn't good enough. Jaguar and others decry any intepretation of the constitution other than what is written but constantly go back to the Federalist papers to try to say what was "intended". Guess what? Reading the Federalist papaers to see what was intended is just another way of interpreting the constitution. Intended don't count. Only what is written counts.

I remember a local law that turned out differently than intended. But, AS WRITTEN it did not acheive the desired effect. They changed ot of course but this goes to show the difference between intent and actual results.

quote:

---

Words MEAN things

---

Of course. The Constitution should not be nearly ambiguous as it is. Too many loopholes. Too many contradictions from what I have read.

"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion".{[This is a direct result of the Church Of England (at the time) trying to replace the caltholic church.] That is when religion tries to control people.}THat is VERY clear. However it does not say it may not later regulate them.

quote:

---

The constitution means what it says, and should be read as the founders intended, not as you wish they would have intended.

---

You are contradicting yourself. You cannot say that the constitution means what it says than turn right around and say that we must do what was intended which is just another way of interpretation. That is the fallacy in your argument.

This is why lawyers win cases on legal technicalities.

The great experiment is about over.

[DraconisRex]

Ms. DragonLady:

I almost agree with you. However, based on English usage in contracts (to include the Constitution) concerning semi-colons, or a continuation of a given thought, the following bolded section is exactly what it says, and what it means:

quote:

---

No state shall

enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and 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.

---

Without a direct Amendment to the Constitution, no bill passed which changes our legal tender from gold and silver is Constitutional. The states aren't coining money, but they are still required to use gold and silver for payment of all debts. Greenbacks were only considered legal because they were backed by gold and silver, and could be exchanged for the same amount at any Federal bank. This being the case, every dollar in your pocket is worthless, and illegal. So sayeth the US Constitution.

Did I miss something elsewhere?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Jaguar:

I'm going to have to study a few Supreme Court decisions in order to tackle your post. I agree with the basics of what was written, but the US-SC can change intentions with nothing more than a vote (or in the case of certain other laws, simply ignoring lower-court decisions.) Legality is set in motion by The People -- The US-SC does have the final word on what it thinks is legal at a given time, which is subject to change without permission, er, notice....

I don't have to agree with them, but I do need to check a few legal points before I can safely make a statement on these issues.

[DraconisRex]

Chavik:

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. A regulation, no matter how you slice it or what technical slant you put on it, is a law. Therefore:

quote:

---

"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion".

---

means that Congress can make no law whatsoever regarding religion, or how it functions, or whether it is legal or not. "Freedom of Religion" means freedom from oppression in religious choice. Anything that Congress tries to pass that deals with religion is, quite simply, illegal, and unconstitutional. The only thing they can do is set certain guidelines which determine if a given religion is non-profit, as they all are not, in reality.

Case in point, take the Church of Scientology. Are they Non-Profit? Hardly. They are simply 100% profit-oriented. So, certain parts of the "church" is taxed, based on fund usage. The actual church part is considered Non-Profit, but that's less than 10% of their income, so they pay taxes, same as any other corporation. Congress can tax that part because they can pass laws concerning commerce, to include taxes collected.

I won't discuss here the Income Tax, as it will require a new thread to properly handle, as I expect it will take some postings to get the points across, especially about direct taxes.

[Charles Lindsey]

Draconis

If I remember right semi colons are used to separate semi independent clauses. Semi independent clause are dependent on something else to make them semi independent. The operative dependent clause in this instance is "No State shall".

To break it down (or expand the statement.)

----------------------------------------

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation;

No state shall grant letters of marque and reprisal;

No State shall coin money;

No state shall emit bills of credit;

No State shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;

No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

-------------------------------

OK now that we have made every dependent clause an independent clause thus basically a sentence unto itself lets look at them.

---------------------------------

No State shall coin money.

Coin actually means to produce, or manufacture. As in to coin a phrase.

I just double checked. It specifically means to manufacture especially by stamping.

------------------------------

No State shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts

Make does not mean to produce or manufacture. Make means provide. Make way. Provide me a way through this. I made it. I did it. I made my way. I provided my way. "Make" has about 20 definitions.

-----------------------

Dragonlady is correct I think.

[Charles Lindsey]

"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion".

The key word is establishment.

Words mean things remember? Where is freedom of religion in the constitution. It may have been intended but is not the law.

[DraconisRex]

Jaguar:

I've said it 4 or 5 times in different posts in this forum -- there are only two ways to force Congress to change the Constitution back to its original intent, and these are:

1. Use the State Legislatures to call Congress to a Constitutional Convention, via authority of Article IV:

quote:

---

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or,

on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments

, which, in either case,

shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof

, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

---

2. Civil War II

It is obvious to those of us who watch the nonsense in D.C. that our Senators and Representatives do not have our best interests in mind. We need an Amendment that basically says, "If specific powers have not been granted by the Constitution, within the Constitution, Congress may pass no law. Any federal laws currently in-force that are not empowered by the Constitituon shall this day be revokes, and become the responsibility of the several states, restricted to the laws of the Constitituon."

Obviously my wording is screwed-up, but I'm a little tired just now....

On September 11th, 2002, we did a special broadcast as a tribute in rememberance of 9-11. I'm a member of the Colonial Federation Network, and this is what we started it with:

quote:

---

The Colonial Federation invites you to accept without reservation or prejudice, the Colonial Federation Challenge.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it:

* Help restore our Constitutional Republic.

* Quit asking Government for favors, handouts, and special privilleges, and refuse its bribes.

* Do the math and take every tax deduction you can.

* Get behind any movement that proves with action it advocates limited government, and push with a relentless drive.

* Encourage those you know to do likewise.

* Get out of public sector employment into private sector work, or start a business.

* Discourage other's dependance on socialistic programs and public benefits.

* Educate yourself in American History and culture, from the Bible, Harvard Classics, and the Public Library.

* Refuse to be intimidated by political correctness, multi-cultualism, and other devisive Socialist lies, because truth is seldom popular, but what's popular is seldom true, since logic is supposed to govern emotion, not the other way around.

---

From there, it went into the actual tribute.

"From Baltimore, Maryland, USA -- This is the Colonial Federation Network."

"The following is a dedication to the men, women, and children, who died in the September 11th, 2001 infamous attack on the World Trade Center, and the United States Pentagon, and to the heroes of the New York Fire Deptment, and Police Department, who gave their lives trying to save others......"

On July 4th and Sept. 11th, I will be re-broadcasting it to anyone interested. Times to be announced.

[DraconisRex]

Chavik:

quote:

---

Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion.

---

Literally, it says that any religion may be established, and Congress may make no law regarding it -- Hence the Freedom of Religion.

quote:

---

No State shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.

---

"A tender" means cash. This partial paragraph is telling the states they cannot use any other form of currency except gold or silver. This would include any laws they wanted to pass regarding legal tender.

To rephrase the semi-paragraph into sense:

"No state shall make anything but gold and silver coin {Do you see dollar bill here???} a tender {legally accepted cash} in payment {as in transfer from one entity to another} of debts {the assumption would be any debt, since it did not specify public, private, or any other specific type, but it did say NO STATE SHALL MAKE ANYTHING -- which with that wording would mean ALL. I do not consider this Constitutional semi-paragraph ambiguous, and it has not been properly amended, which means it's still law.}

A legal technicality is the District of Columbia and possibly our Possessions -- they're not states. If they wanted Cow Poop as legal tender, they're the only places that could have it.

[Raven]

Well darling, that's peachy, but see if this makes any sense to you: The states don't make our currency a tender for payment of debts, the federal government does that. As in those blokes in Washington. You know, the FEDERAL government.

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dragon Lady:

Well darling, that's peachy, but see if this makes any sense to you: The states don't make our currency a tender for payment of debts, the federal government does that. As in those blokes in Washington. You know, the FEDERAL government.

---

You're absoulutely right. They specificially don't have permission. However, the Constitution still says, in Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 5:

quote:

---

To coin money,

regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

---

That says coin, not print. Paper wasn't accepted as currency when the Constitution was written because of the trouble that Parlament was having in Great Britain -- they simply printed all they wanted. The Constitution was trying to forego that little problem by simply using gold and silver as the standard.

(For the record, since Congress has the power to regulate the value of money, taking us off the gold standard was stupid, since they could devalue it directly, without having to resort to killing trees for the hell of it.)

Accordingly, our dollars, in their present form, are not Constitutional. To coin something requires metal, and paper is not metal; never has been, and never will....

[Raven]

Apparently correct, paper money does seam to be unconstitutional.

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dragon Lady:

Apparently correct, paper money does seam to be unconstitutional.

---

In reality, this is meaningless, as we believe our money has vaule, therefore, it does. However, for those of you who feel very strongly about this issue, I offer the following service:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Now that I have proven that Greenbacks are not authorized by the Constitution, and are therefore illegal, I am willing to pay postage on all the Greenbacks you care to send me. I will make certain that they are properly disposed of, in my efforts to make sure you are obeying the law. To protect you, I will disavow any knowledge that you ever broke the law, or even disposed of your illegal money. Thank you for your time.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I doubt I'll have any takers....

[Charles Lindsey]

Gonna sneak in from work.

quote:

---

"A tender" means cash.

---

In no way, shape, or form does tender mean "cash".

quote:

---

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

---

quote:

---

That says coin, not print.

---

That says to coin money. Coin is the verb and as a verb coin means to manufacture. It especially (most often) means to stamp metal coins but is not limited to this. Money as the noun means anything generally accepted as payment including paper money.

[DraconisRex]

Tender:

1. (Law) To offer in payment or satisfaction of a demand, in order to save a penalty or forfeiture; as, to tender the amount of rent or debt.

To Coin:

1. To make (pieces of money) from metal; mint or strike: coined silver dollars.

2. To make pieces of money from (metal): coin gold.

3. To devise (a new word or phrase).

Because the Constitution specifically states coin, and limits:

No state shall emit bills of credit;

which is paper, it stands to reason that the Constitution was written with the intention of denying paper as a standard of payment or bill for/to any state.

This, to me, implies that the several states were supposed to always balance their budget, and never be in debt, even on paper. Which means, NOBODY is obeying the Constitution.

[DraconisRex]

One more thing:

Legal Tender:

( That currency, or money, which the law authorizes a debtor to tender and requires a creditor to receive. It differs in different countries.

Show me where in the Constitution or its Amendements where Congress has been duly authorized to issue paper money not backed by value of gold or silver, and I will concede this issue. Good luck....

[DraconisRex]

And, of course, Money:

n 1: the most common medium of exchange; functions as legal tender; "we tried to collect the money he owed us" 2: wealth reckoned in terms of money: "all his money is in real estate" 3: the official currency issued by a government or national bank; "he changed his money into francs"

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

Tender:

1. (Law) To offer in payment or satisfaction of a demand, in order to save a penalty or forfeiture; as, to tender the amount of rent or debt.

---

Exactly. From your own quote it does not mean cash. You said it meant cash. It doesn't mean cash; it means an offer of payment. That is my only point. You are right about the rest of the paragraph limiting states to coins. Why? Because coins had real value and paper money didn't and still doesn't. That particuluar paragraph is dealing with the States obligations to each other and not the general issue of money.

And to respond to your last post in sort of the order of my post. Legal Tender means cash. Tender does not mean cash. Adding the descriptor "legal" makes all the difference.

quote:

---

Because the Constitution specifically states coin, and limits:

---

It specifically states money. Money is the noun not coin. Coin is the verb and money is the subject.

quote:

---

No state shall emit bills of credit;

which is paper, it stands to reason that the Constitution was written with the intention of denying paper as a standard of payment or bill for/to any state.

---

Exactly. Again this is applying to the states. In the constitution, just above the clause granting Congress the authority to coin money it states that Congress shall have the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. It says money. It does not say coins.

It it were inteneded to only coin coins then it would have said only to coin coins.

quote:

---

Show me where in the Constitution or its Amendements where Congress has been duly authorized to issue paper money not backed by value of gold or silver, and I will concede this issue.

---

Right here. From Encarta. Almost the same as your quote but notice the difference in capital letters.

quote:

---

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

---

This duly authorizes Congress to make money and regulate the value of said money. This power is specifically granted to Congress therefore the tenth amendment cannot apply and it cannot be considered a power not granted.

Now show me where in the Constitution that Congress is required to use a gold standard. It isn't. It is authorized to set the value of it's own money. That they used the gold standard for so long doesn't count. It is not specifically stated that they have to.

quote:

---

Paper wasn't accepted as currency when the Constitution was written because of the trouble that Parlament was having in Great Britain -- they simply printed all they wanted.

---

quote:

---

http://www.ronscurrency.com/rhist.htm

1785 The Dollar

The Continental Congress determined that the official monetary system would be based on the dollar, but the first coin representing the start of this system would not be struck for several years.

1791 First U.S. Bank

After adoption of the Constitution in 1789, Congress chartered the First Bank of the United States untill 1811 and authorized it to issue paper bank notes to eliminate confusion and simplify trade. The bank served as the U.S. Treasury's fiscal agent, thus performing the first central bank functions.

---

quote:

---

In reality, this is meaningless, as we believe our money has vaule, therefore, it does.

---

Of course. The whole discussion has been meaningless but enjoyable.

[Kalshion]

Geez! I learned more history off this board than I did from my history teacher for a whole year