Posted on 02/22/2021 12:45:11 PM PST by amorphous
It'd be great if the states took over ALL responsibility for social security and other subsistence guarantees as well as the money.
States need to once again assume their Constitutional responsibility as a barrier between an all seeing, tyrannical central government and individual citizens.
Especially now that psychopath despots are in complete control of our central government. How the hell did that happen???
Gold and silver is already legal tender in all 50 States. It’s right there in the Constitution.
L
Actually, the Constitution already requires that the States use only gold and silver coin to pay their debts. They should not be able to legally use Federal Reserve Notes already.
I thought this was a case as well, the other point to consider is, no one is going to walk around with gold coins in their pocket to pay for goods and services....
Let’s say you had a $20 gold coin and bought some whiskey with it....the gold melted down and sold would be worth many time over the $20 face value, why in the world would someone do that...
I don’t people have thought this through...
So you want to pay your property taxes with a bar of gold or silver. How does the clerk at the county office know that it is legit or the purity? They don’t, they have no expertise. What spot price do they use?
More amateur hour feel good stuff...
This will be labeled as racist & sexist, since 99% of silver & gold bugs are white men.
How did they pay taxes when gold and silver were money? Oh, that’s right, they didn’t.
Because a debauched fiat fake currency is what results in confiscatory taxes.
If people are serious about using gold as a unit of exchange at this point, it’d have to be done on a weight basis, not a face value, e.g., I’m going to pay you 10 ounces of gold to remodel my kitchen. Assigning a face value tied to the Fed’s funny money utterly defeats the purpose.
Gold AND sliver.
One ounce of silver at spot price is about $28. Bottle of decent whisky, about $28. Problem solved.
L
Back then people had bullion gold and silver coins and used them like we use coins today. Plus there was wide spread expertise in gold and silver.
You give the clerk a silver bar worth $1000 for tax bill of $875. What do you get for change?
Article 1, Section 10:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing 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.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Numismatic value probably far exceeds melt value of gold coins.
Using gold and silver as money is not something new. They were used before government notes. Look at how people used gold and silver and you will have answers to all your questions.
It’s right there in plain language. Gold and silver.
Then there’s the whole “emit bills of credit” thingy.
L
Its interesting that one of the first parts of the Constitution to be ignored was the “money” part of it - after that, the rest has been slowly and steadily trampled or destroyed. Once you have fake, fiat, printed money - its easy for government to pay for any statist, social-engineering scheme it wants.
Try actually reading the Constitution sometime.
L
Those people have been dead for 100 years and the practical daily use tools and and practices they used too.
Daily Bell: "What do you think of Chief Justice Roberts’s decision regarding Obamacare?"Edwin Vieira: "Very little that is fit to print. It is an abomination, if I may be allowed a juxtaposition of letters in order to make a play on words. Roberts held that the so-called "individual mandate" in "Obamacare" — the supposed requirement for Americans to purchase health insurance which they do not want, or be penalized for their refusals — could not be sustained under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause or its Necessary and Proper Clause. Fine. That means that no substantive constitutional power exists that can rationalize that provision in "Obamacare." But then he opined that, notwithstanding the absence of any such substantive power, "the individual mandate" can be enforced as a "tax." What is the result of this aberrant reasoning? Namely, that Congress may, through the imposition of a "tax," coerce Americans into behaving in any manner whatsoever, even though it admittedly enjoys no particular power to require such behavior. Furthermore, as we know, taxes are often enforced not only by the confiscation of money or other property but also by imprisonment. So the bottom line is that Congress can provide for the imprisonment of any and every American who refuses to obey any Congressional command to behave in a certain manner, even though Congress has no independent power whatsoever to require such behavior!
"Obviously, this is far worse than the constitutionally crackpot notion that Congress can "regulate commerce" by coercing Americans to engage in "commerce" against their wills; for at least some forms of personal behavior do not constitute "commerce" (or even, to use the judiciary’s gibberish, "affect commerce") by anyone’s definition, and therefore could never be subject to such a ludicrous misconstruction of Congressional power. Roberts’s "tax" theory, in contrast, embraces every conceivable form of behavior known to man, all of which can be compelled by the imposition of some "tax," and in the final analysis by imprisonment. Thus, appealing to just one clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1), Roberts has concocted a rationalization for a complete totalitarian state! Even Alexander Hamilton, the most consistent and candid centralizer among the Founding Fathers, would have repudiated this theory in no uncertain terms. Even Stalin, I suspect, would have been surprised (albeit pleasantly) to discover that the power to tax, by itself alone, could be so employed. If this is not a perfect illustration of the utter imbecility of "judicial supremacy" — the notion that decisions of the Supreme Court control the meaning of the Constitution — nothing could be."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.