South Carolina Lawmaker Seeks to Ban Federal Currency
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It says the states can't "make anything but gold and silver a tender." As in, the states are not allowed to create their own currency.
Sorry, but you're wrong here. The states can't make currency because of: Article I, Section 10: "No state shall... coin Money". That is five words that will discount all money minted/coined by the state governments. "mak[ing] any Thing but gold and silver coin a tender in Payments of Debt" is a separate issue, and allows any gold and silver found by people, coined by governments (even our federal government), or any other form (jewelry, bars, coins, whatever) to be tender. The only way for the states to deem something a true transaction is by use of silver and gold, not paper. I know, this is against all of what you have believed all of your life, but it's the truth. It's right there in black and white (or brown, as it were).
Ian Shlasko wrote:
They can't print their own money, and they can't suddenly decree that nuts and bolts are now legal tender. It makes an exception for gold and silver, saying that those two metals CAN be used as currency if the state so wishes.
Incorrect. Why in the hell would they specify gold and silver in the Constitution anywhere, if they can simply get around it by allowing the federation to create money out of paper? Ridiculous. "No state shall... coin Money... make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payments of debt." To you, it must be redundancy. But to me, as a constitutionalist, it's two different clauses. Technically, you know I'd be right. The point is, to beat a dead horse, that they are two different things. No state shall make currency, and they shall not accept anything except gold and silver as legal tender in the first place.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
In our case, the federal government has made FRNs a tender, and the states just use them.
Yes. They did. It's unconstitutional to allow people to use anything but gold and silver, however (in the states). So, both the states and the federal government have violated the constitution, and technically, so have everyone within the union. Everyone violates the law, multiple times a day. It's extreme, I know. But, it's the truth. Take a good hard look at the constitution. Don't "interpret" to your satisfaction. Just read the damned thing.
josda1000 wrote:
That is five words that will discount all money minted/coined by the state governments. "mak[ing] any Thing but gold and silver coin a tender in Payments of Debt" is a separate issue, and allows any gold and silver found by people, coined by governments (even our federal government), or any other form (jewelry, bars, coins, whatever) to be tender. The only way for the states to deem something a true transaction is by use of silver and gold, not paper. I know, this is against all of what you have believed all of your life, but it's the truth. It's right there in black and white (or brown, as it were).
Either you're completely wrong, or I'm really misunderstanding your argument. It says the STATES can't coin money. It doesn't say anything about not being able to use money coined by the FEDERAL government. To "make something a tender" is to create a currency. To say "We're paying this debt in garlic knots instead of dollars." The states are prohibited from doing that. The federal government is not. This clause prevents the states from defining their own currency, and that's it.
josda1000 wrote:
Don't "interpret" to your satisfaction. Just read the damned thing.
I've read it through about twenty times now, trying to see your point. All this does is define what the states are allowed to do, and what powers are reserved to the federal government only.
josda1000 wrote:
Bingo. Why would they put that in there if we to go off of gold and silver coins? Seriously. (think of original intent.)
As I said before, the founders put that in so the government would be ABLE to work with gold and silver backed currency. It did NOT require it. Show me the phrase that prohibits the FEDERAL government from issuing currency other than gold or silver.
josda1000 wrote:
OK, let's pretend that we agree that it's all based on "trust". Why has this "trust" in the dollar gone down so far, in about 40 years? Do you think we can live on this "trust" very much longer? The "trust" in gold has never wavered. So you do agree that leaves would not be a good medium of exchange; why do you think that colored leaves are a good medium of exchange? Just because it looks official? Because it has the name, "United States of America" on them? I submit that pennies, in their copper form, are mu
-
josda1000 wrote:
That is five words that will discount all money minted/coined by the state governments. "mak[ing] any Thing but gold and silver coin a tender in Payments of Debt" is a separate issue, and allows any gold and silver found by people, coined by governments (even our federal government), or any other form (jewelry, bars, coins, whatever) to be tender. The only way for the states to deem something a true transaction is by use of silver and gold, not paper. I know, this is against all of what you have believed all of your life, but it's the truth. It's right there in black and white (or brown, as it were).
Either you're completely wrong, or I'm really misunderstanding your argument. It says the STATES can't coin money. It doesn't say anything about not being able to use money coined by the FEDERAL government. To "make something a tender" is to create a currency. To say "We're paying this debt in garlic knots instead of dollars." The states are prohibited from doing that. The federal government is not. This clause prevents the states from defining their own currency, and that's it.
josda1000 wrote:
Don't "interpret" to your satisfaction. Just read the damned thing.
I've read it through about twenty times now, trying to see your point. All this does is define what the states are allowed to do, and what powers are reserved to the federal government only.
josda1000 wrote:
Bingo. Why would they put that in there if we to go off of gold and silver coins? Seriously. (think of original intent.)
As I said before, the founders put that in so the government would be ABLE to work with gold and silver backed currency. It did NOT require it. Show me the phrase that prohibits the FEDERAL government from issuing currency other than gold or silver.
josda1000 wrote:
OK, let's pretend that we agree that it's all based on "trust". Why has this "trust" in the dollar gone down so far, in about 40 years? Do you think we can live on this "trust" very much longer? The "trust" in gold has never wavered. So you do agree that leaves would not be a good medium of exchange; why do you think that colored leaves are a good medium of exchange? Just because it looks official? Because it has the name, "United States of America" on them? I submit that pennies, in their copper form, are mu
I've got some nice pocket lint... I'd join in this, but I had my fill today.
-
josda1000 wrote:
That is five words that will discount all money minted/coined by the state governments. "mak[ing] any Thing but gold and silver coin a tender in Payments of Debt" is a separate issue, and allows any gold and silver found by people, coined by governments (even our federal government), or any other form (jewelry, bars, coins, whatever) to be tender. The only way for the states to deem something a true transaction is by use of silver and gold, not paper. I know, this is against all of what you have believed all of your life, but it's the truth. It's right there in black and white (or brown, as it were).
Either you're completely wrong, or I'm really misunderstanding your argument. It says the STATES can't coin money. It doesn't say anything about not being able to use money coined by the FEDERAL government. To "make something a tender" is to create a currency. To say "We're paying this debt in garlic knots instead of dollars." The states are prohibited from doing that. The federal government is not. This clause prevents the states from defining their own currency, and that's it.
josda1000 wrote:
Don't "interpret" to your satisfaction. Just read the damned thing.
I've read it through about twenty times now, trying to see your point. All this does is define what the states are allowed to do, and what powers are reserved to the federal government only.
josda1000 wrote:
Bingo. Why would they put that in there if we to go off of gold and silver coins? Seriously. (think of original intent.)
As I said before, the founders put that in so the government would be ABLE to work with gold and silver backed currency. It did NOT require it. Show me the phrase that prohibits the FEDERAL government from issuing currency other than gold or silver.
josda1000 wrote:
OK, let's pretend that we agree that it's all based on "trust". Why has this "trust" in the dollar gone down so far, in about 40 years? Do you think we can live on this "trust" very much longer? The "trust" in gold has never wavered. So you do agree that leaves would not be a good medium of exchange; why do you think that colored leaves are a good medium of exchange? Just because it looks official? Because it has the name, "United States of America" on them? I submit that pennies, in their copper form, are mu
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It says the STATES can't coin money. It doesn't say anything about not being able to use money coined by the FEDERAL government.
You're absolutely right about that, except for the one point I'm trying to make: The states MUST use gold and silver coin as legal tender. Therefore, in order for us to use any kind of "currency" created by the federal government, said government must make gold and silver coins, and the states MUST force us to use that silver and gold. The only way that the Fed can be allowed to create money is for use in the District of Columbia and the territories. They are not allowed to operate in the states.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
To "make something a tender" is to create a currency.
No. Just, no. It's not. Read what you just wrote. Making something a tender is to declare something is tender. You said it yourself: the federal government can make pinecones or leaves tender. But that's not actually "making" or "creating" A tender. It is more like a declaration or decree.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
To say "We're paying this debt in garlic knots instead of dollars."
Agreed.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The states are prohibited from doing that.
Not agreed. They are only limited to saying what specific silver or gold is legal in that state. For example, they can say that Spanish silver dollars are legal tender, but not United States silver dollars. It'd be hypocritical... yet they have that power.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Show me the phrase that prohibits the FEDERAL government from issuing currency other than gold or silver.
You're right, it doesn't. But that's precisely the point: The Consitution is one of limited powers to the Congress. Article I Section 8 spells out the powers. If it is not listed in this section, then they CAN NOT do it. So, what do we have to go on? The powers we've listed already. The states have all the power they can dream up, while only certain powers are given to the Federal government. Simply put: if it is not listed in Article I, Section 8, then Congress (the federal government) can not do it. So: you tell me where they specifically CAN do it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Leaves COULD be considered currenc
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It says the STATES can't coin money. It doesn't say anything about not being able to use money coined by the FEDERAL government.
You're absolutely right about that, except for the one point I'm trying to make: The states MUST use gold and silver coin as legal tender. Therefore, in order for us to use any kind of "currency" created by the federal government, said government must make gold and silver coins, and the states MUST force us to use that silver and gold. The only way that the Fed can be allowed to create money is for use in the District of Columbia and the territories. They are not allowed to operate in the states.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
To "make something a tender" is to create a currency.
No. Just, no. It's not. Read what you just wrote. Making something a tender is to declare something is tender. You said it yourself: the federal government can make pinecones or leaves tender. But that's not actually "making" or "creating" A tender. It is more like a declaration or decree.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
To say "We're paying this debt in garlic knots instead of dollars."
Agreed.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The states are prohibited from doing that.
Not agreed. They are only limited to saying what specific silver or gold is legal in that state. For example, they can say that Spanish silver dollars are legal tender, but not United States silver dollars. It'd be hypocritical... yet they have that power.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Show me the phrase that prohibits the FEDERAL government from issuing currency other than gold or silver.
You're right, it doesn't. But that's precisely the point: The Consitution is one of limited powers to the Congress. Article I Section 8 spells out the powers. If it is not listed in this section, then they CAN NOT do it. So, what do we have to go on? The powers we've listed already. The states have all the power they can dream up, while only certain powers are given to the Federal government. Simply put: if it is not listed in Article I, Section 8, then Congress (the federal government) can not do it. So: you tell me where they specifically CAN do it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Leaves COULD be considered currenc
josda1000 wrote:
The states MUST use gold and silver coin as legal tender.
Incorrect. See below.
josda1000 wrote:
No. Just, no. It's not. Read what you just wrote. Making something a tender is to declare something is tender.
Poor choice of words on my part. You're absolutely correct. And the constitution says that the states are NOT allowed to declare anything to be tender, apart from gold and silver. The FEDERAL government IS allowed to make such a declaration, and does with FRNs. The states are then simply using the currency that has already been declared to be tender by the federal government.
josda1000 wrote:
You're right, it doesn't. But that's precisely the point: The Consitution is one of limited powers to the Congress. Article I Section 8 spells out the powers. If it is not listed in this section, then they CAN NOT do it. So, what do we have to go on? The powers we've listed already. The states have all the power they can dream up, while only certain powers are given to the Federal government. Simply put: if it is not listed in Article I, Section 8, then Congress (the federal government) can not do it. So: you tell me where they specifically CAN do it.
We've been over this. They (federal gov) have the power to coin (create) money, and to regulate its value. This isn't rocket science. It doesn't say they have to use gold or silver. It says "money." Anything can be money. The federal government decided that FRNs are money. Tada, they've coined money. They've declared it tender, and now the states can use it.
josda1000 wrote:
What I'm also trying to get through to you is that leaves are paper! and that's precisely what we have today, paper money! What makes you think that printing money out of paper is any more logical than leaves from a tree?! They say that money doesn't grow on trees. I call bulls***.
Because FRNs can't be grown in your backyard? Because they're difficult enough to counterfeit that the government (Or their delgate, the Fed) can control their production, and hence regulate their value? If maple leaves were the currency, and the federal government was the only one with maple trees, then maybe those could be currency. Still kinda easy to counterfeit, though.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark
-
-
josda1000 wrote:
The states MUST use gold and silver coin as legal tender.
Incorrect. See below.
josda1000 wrote:
No. Just, no. It's not. Read what you just wrote. Making something a tender is to declare something is tender.
Poor choice of words on my part. You're absolutely correct. And the constitution says that the states are NOT allowed to declare anything to be tender, apart from gold and silver. The FEDERAL government IS allowed to make such a declaration, and does with FRNs. The states are then simply using the currency that has already been declared to be tender by the federal government.
josda1000 wrote:
You're right, it doesn't. But that's precisely the point: The Consitution is one of limited powers to the Congress. Article I Section 8 spells out the powers. If it is not listed in this section, then they CAN NOT do it. So, what do we have to go on? The powers we've listed already. The states have all the power they can dream up, while only certain powers are given to the Federal government. Simply put: if it is not listed in Article I, Section 8, then Congress (the federal government) can not do it. So: you tell me where they specifically CAN do it.
We've been over this. They (federal gov) have the power to coin (create) money, and to regulate its value. This isn't rocket science. It doesn't say they have to use gold or silver. It says "money." Anything can be money. The federal government decided that FRNs are money. Tada, they've coined money. They've declared it tender, and now the states can use it.
josda1000 wrote:
What I'm also trying to get through to you is that leaves are paper! and that's precisely what we have today, paper money! What makes you think that printing money out of paper is any more logical than leaves from a tree?! They say that money doesn't grow on trees. I call bulls***.
Because FRNs can't be grown in your backyard? Because they're difficult enough to counterfeit that the government (Or their delgate, the Fed) can control their production, and hence regulate their value? If maple leaves were the currency, and the federal government was the only one with maple trees, then maybe those could be currency. Still kinda easy to counterfeit, though.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark
Ian Shlasko wrote:
the constitution says that the states are NOT allowed to declare anything to be tender, apart from gold and silver.
Precisely the point I'm trying to make.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The FEDERAL government IS allowed to make such a declaration, and does with FRNs.
Agreed.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The states are then simply using the currency that has already been declared to be tender by the federal government.
Still agreed, but here's where it goes wrong. This is the unconstitutionality. The states have more power than the federal government, and if the US is doing something that the states can't abide by, then it's unconstitutional. Yes, the states cannot coin money. BUT they must only allow its citizens to use constitutional money, which is gold and silver. "No state shall make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payments of debt." It's black and white. If the government emits bills of credit as opposed to gold and silver coin, the states MUST declare something else to be legal tender. Because of this very line, the Federal Government may make the federal reserve, and they can make notes. But, it's only legal tender within federal territories, NOT the states.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Anything can be money. The federal government decided that FRNs are money. Tada, they've coined money.
Yeah, they did. It's still unconstitutional within the fifty states.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Because FRNs can't be grown in your backyard?
But they are! They just aren't cut and sized and drawn on in our backyard!
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Because they're difficult enough to counterfeit that the government (Or their delgate, the Fed) can control their production, and hence regulate their value?
Ah, so what makes it legal for the Federal Reserve to counterfeit? Legal Tender laws? How nice. Anyway, yes, they are difficult to counterfeit. But it's also difficult to counterfeit gold or silver. Plus, why is it fair for only one entity to create money, nevermind the fact that money is also created through fractional reserve banking. Why leave it to banks only? Isn't that a bit too much power for only a few people?
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
the constitution says that the states are NOT allowed to declare anything to be tender, apart from gold and silver.
Precisely the point I'm trying to make.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The FEDERAL government IS allowed to make such a declaration, and does with FRNs.
Agreed.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The states are then simply using the currency that has already been declared to be tender by the federal government.
Still agreed, but here's where it goes wrong. This is the unconstitutionality. The states have more power than the federal government, and if the US is doing something that the states can't abide by, then it's unconstitutional. Yes, the states cannot coin money. BUT they must only allow its citizens to use constitutional money, which is gold and silver. "No state shall make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payments of debt." It's black and white. If the government emits bills of credit as opposed to gold and silver coin, the states MUST declare something else to be legal tender. Because of this very line, the Federal Government may make the federal reserve, and they can make notes. But, it's only legal tender within federal territories, NOT the states.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Anything can be money. The federal government decided that FRNs are money. Tada, they've coined money.
Yeah, they did. It's still unconstitutional within the fifty states.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Because FRNs can't be grown in your backyard?
But they are! They just aren't cut and sized and drawn on in our backyard!
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Because they're difficult enough to counterfeit that the government (Or their delgate, the Fed) can control their production, and hence regulate their value?
Ah, so what makes it legal for the Federal Reserve to counterfeit? Legal Tender laws? How nice. Anyway, yes, they are difficult to counterfeit. But it's also difficult to counterfeit gold or silver. Plus, why is it fair for only one entity to create money, nevermind the fact that money is also created through fractional reserve banking. Why leave it to banks only? Isn't that a bit too much power for only a few people?
josda1000 wrote:
"No state shall make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payments of debt." It's black and white. If the government emits bills of credit as opposed to gold and silver coin, the states MUST declare something else to be legal tender.
Why? The state doesn't have to "declare" FRNs to be tender. They've been so declared by the federal government. The state doesn't have to do ANYTHING. The Federal government does the work, because the state doesn't have any power over this. Federal Gov't: These are called Federal Reserve Notes. This is money now! State: Okay. End of story. That clause, nowadays, seems to be there to prevent states from going into debt. State budgets have to be balanced, while the federal government can run a deficit. So the states aren't allowed to say "Ok, these are Texas Reserve Notes. We'll pay you back eventually, probably." Only the federal government can do that.
josda1000 wrote:
But they are! They just aren't cut and sized and drawn on in our backyard!
Can anyone other than the government make a dollar bill? No. You need a lot of expensive equipment and special supplies, and if you manage to get all of that stuff together, you'll probably get busted by the FBI.
josda1000 wrote:
Ah, so what makes it legal for the Federal Reserve to counterfeit? Legal Tender laws? How nice. Anyway, yes, they are difficult to counterfeit. But it's also difficult to counterfeit gold or silver. Plus, why is it fair for only one entity to create money, nevermind the fact that money is also created through fractional reserve banking. Why leave it to banks only? Isn't that a bit too much power for only a few people?
josda1000 wrote:
This has everything to do with freedom/slavery. We are debt slaves to the banks. Because we are not free from this corrupt idea of fiat money. We are in debt up to our eyeballs but few can see it.
I'm not going to debate fractional reserve banking with you again. We've been down that road, and it's pretty clear that we're not going to agree on it. Let's stick to the topic, and that is the constitutionality of FRNs.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which o
-
josda1000 wrote:
"No state shall make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payments of debt." It's black and white. If the government emits bills of credit as opposed to gold and silver coin, the states MUST declare something else to be legal tender.
Why? The state doesn't have to "declare" FRNs to be tender. They've been so declared by the federal government. The state doesn't have to do ANYTHING. The Federal government does the work, because the state doesn't have any power over this. Federal Gov't: These are called Federal Reserve Notes. This is money now! State: Okay. End of story. That clause, nowadays, seems to be there to prevent states from going into debt. State budgets have to be balanced, while the federal government can run a deficit. So the states aren't allowed to say "Ok, these are Texas Reserve Notes. We'll pay you back eventually, probably." Only the federal government can do that.
josda1000 wrote:
But they are! They just aren't cut and sized and drawn on in our backyard!
Can anyone other than the government make a dollar bill? No. You need a lot of expensive equipment and special supplies, and if you manage to get all of that stuff together, you'll probably get busted by the FBI.
josda1000 wrote:
Ah, so what makes it legal for the Federal Reserve to counterfeit? Legal Tender laws? How nice. Anyway, yes, they are difficult to counterfeit. But it's also difficult to counterfeit gold or silver. Plus, why is it fair for only one entity to create money, nevermind the fact that money is also created through fractional reserve banking. Why leave it to banks only? Isn't that a bit too much power for only a few people?
josda1000 wrote:
This has everything to do with freedom/slavery. We are debt slaves to the banks. Because we are not free from this corrupt idea of fiat money. We are in debt up to our eyeballs but few can see it.
I'm not going to debate fractional reserve banking with you again. We've been down that road, and it's pretty clear that we're not going to agree on it. Let's stick to the topic, and that is the constitutionality of FRNs.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which o
Ian Shlasko wrote:
State budgets have to be balanced, while the federal government can run a deficit.
Take that back. Please. California. New York. New Jersey. Massachusetts. Need I go on?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So the states aren't allowed to say "Ok, these are Texas Reserve Notes. We'll pay you back eventually, probably." Only the federal government can do that.
Do you see ANY kind of hypocrisy with this statement? I mean, I know I'm a small government kind of guy, but if one can't do it, the other can't. The United States of America was created to protect everyone, not enslave everyone. If you think it's A-OK to run a deficit in your home, then by all means, you may agree with it on the federal level. But I know it's not right to at home. So why the hell would the federal government be able to do it, while states can't? I don't think so.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Federal Gov't: These are called Federal Reserve Notes. This is money now! State: Okay. End of story.
Agreed, that's how it worked. But why do you think there's a tea party/libertarian/grassroots movement going on in the first place? It's the bankers, big business and government. Central planning was never much in the American system until the early 1920s. Once this stuff is exposed enough, we'll get our constitution back. States are only submitting to this because they're getting things out of deals with the federal government. But I think you see that the states are finally starting to nullify laws that are under the state's belts, and finally putting up a fight. A lot of changes will occur.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Can anyone other than the government make a dollar bill? No. You need a lot of expensive equipment and special supplies, and if you manage to get all of that stuff together, you'll probably get busted by the FBI.
You're totally off the point here. I'm not saying that anyone WILL make dollars. I'm saying that they are reasonably easy to create, because it's made of paper. It's not something like gold or silver, which would restrain the government from overspending and running deficits. Again, when is it right to run deficits that would enslave our children? I don't even have any yet, and my first born would be about $113,000 in debt, because of the federal government. (usd
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
State budgets have to be balanced, while the federal government can run a deficit.
Take that back. Please. California. New York. New Jersey. Massachusetts. Need I go on?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So the states aren't allowed to say "Ok, these are Texas Reserve Notes. We'll pay you back eventually, probably." Only the federal government can do that.
Do you see ANY kind of hypocrisy with this statement? I mean, I know I'm a small government kind of guy, but if one can't do it, the other can't. The United States of America was created to protect everyone, not enslave everyone. If you think it's A-OK to run a deficit in your home, then by all means, you may agree with it on the federal level. But I know it's not right to at home. So why the hell would the federal government be able to do it, while states can't? I don't think so.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Federal Gov't: These are called Federal Reserve Notes. This is money now! State: Okay. End of story.
Agreed, that's how it worked. But why do you think there's a tea party/libertarian/grassroots movement going on in the first place? It's the bankers, big business and government. Central planning was never much in the American system until the early 1920s. Once this stuff is exposed enough, we'll get our constitution back. States are only submitting to this because they're getting things out of deals with the federal government. But I think you see that the states are finally starting to nullify laws that are under the state's belts, and finally putting up a fight. A lot of changes will occur.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Can anyone other than the government make a dollar bill? No. You need a lot of expensive equipment and special supplies, and if you manage to get all of that stuff together, you'll probably get busted by the FBI.
You're totally off the point here. I'm not saying that anyone WILL make dollars. I'm saying that they are reasonably easy to create, because it's made of paper. It's not something like gold or silver, which would restrain the government from overspending and running deficits. Again, when is it right to run deficits that would enslave our children? I don't even have any yet, and my first born would be about $113,000 in debt, because of the federal government. (usd
josda1000 wrote:
Take that back. Please. California. New York. New Jersey. Massachusetts. Need I go on?
Right, sorry... They're not allowed to be in debt. Once their coffers run dry, they have to balance or get federal aid. As for the rest of your post... You've digressed completely. We're not disputing whether the Fed is a good thing or not (Been there, done that), but whether FRNs are allowed under the constitution.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
josda1000 wrote:
Have you seen Georgia HB 430? Constitutional Tender Act.
Haven't seen it. I will give it a look.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
You can get most of the info regarding the ConTen Act here: http://www.constitutionaltender.com/[^] We had a big hearing on the bill last session, you can watch testimony here: http://constitutionaltender.blogspot.com/2009/03/constitutional-tender-bill-was-heard-in.html[^] There's an updated & slightly improved version of the bill which will substituted when it goes to full committee, here: http://www.sicm.com/constitutionaltender/ga-bill.pdf[^] We're seeing more and more states introduce such bills. I'm glad to see SC come on board too! :) BG