Posted on 05/09/2006 8:33:28 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
WASHINGTON -- Back in the 2004 presidential primaries, when Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, suggested that Democrats should be competing for the votes of young men with Confederate flags on their pickups, politicians from both parties rushed to accuse him of repeating a vile Southern stereotype: the redneck with antiquated views on race. < SNIP >
''Howard Dean knows about as much about the South as a hog knows about Sunday," quipped Georgia Senator Zell Miller, the conservative Democrat who supported President Bush. ''Sure, we drive pickups, but on the back of those pickups, you see a lot of American flags. It's the most patriotic region in the country. And you see hard-working individuals that want to instill values in their children, and you see a very, very strong work ethic in the South. He doesn't understand the South." < SNIP >
Many Southerners express outrage at Northern depictions of Confederate-loving Southerners, even as they accede to the idea that the flag has a place in their regional heritage. Only those inside the Southern family circle can truly understand the region's complicated relationship with its own history.< SNIP >
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
So you think we'd be better off if the economy could only expand as gold and silver are discovered mined and refined? You're a big fan of deflation, I take it.
I think you Southernors do a mighty fine job of stating your case! :)
LOL!
You think we're better off with government deciding whether the 'value' is up or down?
The only thing you can build on a lie is another lie. Sooner or later, the truth comes out and the entire lie collapses. The Founders knew this.
Sacrificing priceless freedom for the sake of the Almighty dollar is NOT worth it. Barter was the most common method of exchange back then, and it easily could be again.
-----
You're a big fan of deflation, I take it.
No, just a HUGE fan of the Constitution, since it's the law.
Other than the designated areas of the federal enclave, forts, ports and arsenals and within its strictly enumerated duties, no it does not.
-------
The Federalist No. 45
Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered
Independent Journal
Saturday, January 26, 1788
[James Madison]
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
Ahh, now it all makes sense. You're a nut.
When was this "back then" you're talking about? 1860? Think again. Would you care to explain how a barter economy works in a post-industrial economy? Does the computer programmer trade code for food with a farmer? What about your electric bill? Are you going to go down to the electric company and work for them running electrical cable for enough hours until you've done your bill's worth?
Ah. Personal attack instead of rational argument. I always thought that made one look rather foolish. Guess you're no exception.
------
Good day to you, sir.
You know it's funny. I had a history professor at the University of Maryland named Ira Berlin. It turns out he was a Pulitzer Prize winning author as well. The class was advertised as the History of the US, 1789-1865. I took the course hoping that it would delve deeply into the Civil War. It turns out that the ENTIRE course was about slavery and how bad the white people were. There was nothing else... nothing about the events leading to the Civil War, nothing on the Industrial Revolution, nothing on the War of 1812, nothing on the Alamo, nothing on the Mexican American War .... just slavery. You guys remind me of him.
Have you no concept whatsoever about how the government is supposed to operate? Whether or not Chase believed a law to be unconstitutional was irrelevant. Congress passed the law and he was duty bound to implement it. Only the Supreme Court could declare an action unconstitutional, not the President or the Congress or the Secretary of the Treasury. Chase made his objections known and then followed the law.
Why does everyone attach such difficulty in reading the words for themselves?
Perhaps it is because we don't have the same...eccentric view of the world as you do?
To coin money. Not print money. We were to be kept on a gold and silver standard. Fiat money is a lie, and against the natural (or common) law.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that paper money is forbidden. And excuse me? A violation of 'natural law'? Just how did you stagger to that conclusion?
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)
So now you are saying that Congress can only pass laws that apply to DC and not the rest of the country? Is that what you are claiming here?
Before Lincoln, we had a limited government that recognized the rights of the States. After Lincoln, we had a democracy... a type of government the Founders abhorred.
Yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Lincolns actions were wholly unconstitutional, not once, but twice.
And I have yet to see you offer anything other than your opinion supporting such an asinine claim. You keep forgetting that acts are not unconstitutional merely because you claim that they are.
What I said was There were no Republicans in the Confederate Government.
Clearly you don't know the difference between a private and a president.
Well BOY, Ah were borned in Texas, raised in Louisiana, Taught in Florida, served in South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, got family in Virgina, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Oklahoma.
Why you want to come visit me and explain things to me the hard way...
I've pointed out everything that is and was wrong and racist with the south can be blamed on the democrats that ran it for the last 140 years.
and as we all know all to well the only political party profiting off of their planned destruction of Confederate symbols, heritage, and history is the Democrats.
Call me a fool for saying it if you want, but I got to know why defending the democrats and what they have done is so damned important to anyone that holds the confederate flag and heritage dear.
So who deals with the external order, improvement, and prosperity of the state if not, as you claim, Congress?
No, he's talking about the intrinsic lie of paper money.
Here. Perhaps this will be more to your liking:
Charles Pinckney, South Carolina Ratifying Convention
20 May 1788
I apprehend these general reasonings will be found true with respect to paper money: That experience has shown that, in every state where it has been practised since the revolution, it always carries the gold and silver out of the country, and impoverishes it--that, while it remains, all the foreign merchants, trading in America, must suffer and lose by it; therefore, that it must ever be a discouragement to commerce--that every medium of trade should have an intrinsic value, which paper money has not; gold and silver are therefore the fittest for this medium, as they are an equivalent, which paper can never be--that debtors in the assemblies will, whenever they can, make paper money with fraudulent views--that in those states where the credit of the paper money has been best supported, the bills have never kept to their nominal value in circulation, but have constantly depreciated to a certain degree.
But above all, how much will this section tend to restore your credit with foreigners--to rescue your national character from that contempt which must ever follow the most flagrant violations of public faith and private honesty! No more shall paper money, no more shall tender-laws, drive their commerce from our shores, and darken the American name in every country where it is known. No more shall our citizens conceal in their coffers those treasures which the weakness and dishonesty of our government have long hidden from the public eye. The firmness of a just and even system shall bring them into circulation, and honor and virtue shall be again known and countenanced among us.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_10_1s6.html
----------
Yeah, as one cabinet member said, Chase's "opinions as a jurist were the opposite his views as a statesman."
Oh. So Chase wasn't concerned about the law of the Constitution so much as he was making it fit to his own ends....
just like Lincoln.
"Explain it to me the hard way"
There's nothing I'd like better than to explain it to you the "hard way". There's nothng worse than a traitor to his own people. A Scalawag. Lower than dirt.
Obviously better than some.
------
Whether or not Chase believed a law to be unconstitutional was irrelevant.Congress passed the law and he was duty bound to implement it.
Really?
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void."
Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174,176
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177.
------
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that paper money is forbidden.
"Where the meaning of the constitution is clear and unambiguous, there can be no resort to construction to attribute to the founders a purpose of intent not manifest in its letter."
Norris v. Baltimore, 172, Md. 667; 192 A 531.0.
"It is the peculiar value of a written constitution that it places in unchanging form limitations upon the legislation and thus gives a permanence and stability to popular government which otherwise would be lacking."
Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412.
""The basic purpose of a written constitution has a twofold aspect, first the securing to the people of certain unchangeable rights and remedies, and second, the curtailment of unrestricted governmental activity within certain defined fields."."
DuPont v. DuPont, Sup. 32 Ded. Ch. 413; 85 A 2d 724.
Also, see post #132
------
A violation of 'natural law'? Just how did you stagger to that conclusion?
Lovely. No wonder Americans are constantly screwed by the government. What is natural law??? Not much-
JUST THE SOURCE OF YOUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
(Geesh!)
Do you honestly think your rights are granted by the Constitution? That's a horrible thought!
Try reading some of the material posted instead of relying on what you THINK you already know.
Blackstone:
This law of nature, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.
------
So now you are saying that Congress can only pass laws that apply to DC and not the rest of the country? Is that what you are claiming here?
It's not a 'claim' it's a fact.
'10 miles square' is the limitation of the federal jurisdiction UNLESS government is exercising an enumerated, national duty.
------
Yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda.
And your offering has been? Links? Sources? letters? Legal treatise?
NADA, NADA, NADA!
---------
And I have yet to see you offer anything other than your opinion supporting such an asinine claim.
Uh...you don't read too well, then, do you mister? I have posted the sources...do not blame me for your sloth.
FR has become infested with No-Source Wonders. Folks who deride others for their conclusions while contributing nothing of their own.
Good day, sir.
Obviously not.
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void."
And where does it say that it's the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to say which laws are repugnant to the Constitution. In that same Marbury v Madison decision Chief Justice Marshall makes it clear that the responsibility for interpreting the law lies with the Supreme Court. Not the Cabinet. Not the Congress. Not the president.
Chase may have disagreed with the law, he may have felt it was not supported by the Constitution, his latter votes as Chief Justice bear this out. But until the law was ruled unconstitutional he was obligated to enact it.
Where the meaning of the constitution is clear and unambiguous...
It couldn't be too unambiguous or the Supreme Court wouldn't have upheld the Constitutionality of the greenbacks now would it?
(Geesh!)
And where does this natural law touch on the subject of paper money?
It's not a 'claim' it's a fact.
ROTFLMAO. Facts are what you say they are, is that it? So how do you reconcile Article VI, Clause 2 with that gem of yours? How can laws passed under the Constitution supercede local laws if the Congress's legislative authority begins and ends with DC?
FR has become infested with No-Source Wonders. Folks who deride others for their conclusions while contributing nothing of their own.
So I see.
It is obvious you do not as you have YET to source anything.
Again, good day to you.
Fair enough. On the subject of the validity of paper currency:
"We are not aware of anything else which has been advanced in support of the proposition that the legal tender acts were forbidden by either the letter or the spirit of the Constitution. If, therefore, they were, what we have endeavored to show, appropriate means for legitimate ends, they were not transgressive of the authority vested in Congress.
Here we might stop; but we will notice briefly an argument presented in support of the position that the unit of money value must possess intrinsic value. The argument is derived from assimilating the constitutional provision respecting a standard of weights and measures to that conferring the power to coin money and regulate its value. It is said there can be no uniform standard of weights without weight, or of measure without length or space, and we are asked how anything can be made a uniform standard of value which has itself no value? This is a question foreign to the subject before us. The legal tender acts do not attempt to make paper a standard of value. We do not rest their validity upon the assertion that their emission is coinage, or any regulation of the value of money; nor do we assert that Con ress may make anything which has no value money. What we do assert is, that Congress has power to enact that the government's promises to pay money shall be, for the time being, equivalent in value to the representative of value determined by the coinage acts, or to multiples thereof. It is hardly correct to speak of a standard of value. The Constitution does not speak of it. It contemplates a standard for that which has gravity or extension; but value is an ideal thing. The coinage acts fix its unit as a dollar; but the gold or silver thing we call a dollar is, in no sense, a standard of a dollar. It is a representative of it." -- Majority opinion in Legal Tender Cases.
If one looks at the Constitution itself then there is enough contradictions to throw the whole matter open for interpretation. Article I, Section 8 says that Congress shall have the power to "coin Money, regulate the Value thereof..." Section 10 says that states may only use gold and silver coin as tender to pay debts. Since the U.S. first minted copper coins in 1793 then does that mean that half pennies were unconstitutional? Or that they couldn't be used as tender to pay debts? If that were so then what use where they? How about the three cent coin first minted in 1851? That was a silver and copper combination. Constitutional or unconstitutional?
The Constitution gives Congess the power to regulate the value of the dollar. Implied in that is the power to say that a dollar is a dollar regardless of whether it is made of silver or of gold, or paper for that matter.
he is the Minister of DAMNyankee Propaganda & the ONLY one of the unionist group on FR, who has both a brain & an education.
his JOB is PROPAGANDA. nothing more, nothing less. so expect NOTHING ELSE from him. nonetheless, i respect him as a FReeper & a man.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
a SCALAWAG is LOWER than worms.
free dixie,sw
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.