[Freedom4US]

Nixon didn’t have any choice. Don’t blame him.

More correctly FDR, who actually outlawed Americans from owning monetary gold, ($10,000 fine) repudiated gold clause contracts which were prior to that common in real estate lease agreements, reneged on government issued gold bonds, accused the American people of “Hoarding” and confiscated at least 10,000 tons of gold coinage, and stuffed it into a vault at Ft. Knox.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

More correctly FDR, who actually outlawed Americans from owning monetary gold, ($10,000 fine) repudiated gold clause contracts which were prior to that common in real estate lease agreements, reneged on government issued gold bonds, accused the American people of “Hoarding” and confiscated at least 10,000 tons of gold coinage, and stuffed it into a vault at Ft. Knox.

This. Unfortunately the Constitution says

The Congress shall have Power . . . To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures

We need an amendment saying, “The right of the people to buy, keep, and sell gold at their own discretion shall not be infringed.” Because it is a natural right of free people, and would have instantly been recognized as such in the founding era. Which actually means that SCOTUS should enforce that right under the Ninth Amendment. But, SCOTUS isn’t that strong on the Ninth. Justice Thomas, yes - but SCOTUS, not so much.

I argue, on the topic of the Ninth, that suing for libel is a right of the people, recognized almost explicitly in the First Amendment. Scalia pointed out that freedom of the press - with limits for libel and pornography - pre-existed the First Amendment, and that the expression “the freedom of . . . the press” did not mean absolute freedom but recognized the limits I mentioned.

Repealing the the laws of libel and pornography would have been controversial, and the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to tamp down controversy. But when SCOTUS preened itself over having “protected the First Amendment” in its 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision, it was actually extending the First Amendment at the expense of the right to sue for libel, an unenumerated right.

The upshot is that Republican officials’ right to sue for libel is now considered only theoretical (Democrats go along so assiduously - and consequently get along so famously - with journalists that they are never libeled). And that has entitled Democrats, not only to their own opinions, but to their own facts - which is the engine of political correctness.