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.
This will be labeled as racist & sexist, since 99% of silver & gold bugs are white men.
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."
Huzzah!
The referenced article seems to gloss over several unconstitutional things about the constitutionally undefined Federal Reserve and so-called federal banking regulations.
First, Thomas Jefferson had clarified that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) had decided not to expressly constitutionally give Congress the specific power to regulate INTRAstate banking.
"It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution." —Thomas jefferson, Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, 1791.
Next, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had given Congress the express constitutional power to regulate the value of money whether Congress wants that power or not.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof [emphasis added], and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
A related point concerning Congress's power to regulate value of money is this. Noting that ordinary legal voting citizens have aways had the specific power to elect representatives, when Congress unconstitutionally surrendered its power to regulate value of money to the constitutionally undefined, third party Federal Reserve, the following happened.
By doing so, Congress wrongly weakened the voting power of ordinary citizens to indirectly control value of money through their elected representatives.
Next, since Con-Con delegates were aware of problems with regulating the value of paper money, another significant observation about Clause 5 is that it expressly authorizes Congress to make only coin money since there is no mention of paper money in that clause.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: To coin Money [emphasis added], regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
But under the 10th Amendment (10A), the states could still use paper money as legal tender, right?
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States [hint; emphasis added], are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
W R O N G !
Con-Con delegates had also included a constitutional provision prohibiting the states from making paper money regardless of their 10A powers.
"Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: 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 [emphases added]; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
Corrections, insights welcome.
Poor Peter Schiff. His own son is a bitcoin convert, but he still keeps playing Don Quixote with his championing of gold. Does he really imagine people will transact in a modern and digital economy with gold and silver coinage?
I realize there are still goldbugs out there, but cryptocurrency has stolen their thunder and is far more realistic as the wave of the future. We share Schiff’s criticism of government-orchestrated, unbacked fiat money and how it empowers leftist totalitarian government. But in 2021 shiny rocks are not the answer.
Interesting. Hope more states will do this...