Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: blam

I know a bit of American history but have never delved into the gold confiscation scam that the U.S. government perpetrated in the 1930s. How could it possibly have been viewed as Constitutional for the Govenment to seize private property? A wake up call for anyone who thinks that the U.S.S.C. will actually side with gun owners when the Feds inevitably push for confiscation.


3 posted on 05/01/2013 7:34:07 AM PDT by littleharbour ("All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree. ~ James Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: littleharbour
How could it possibly have been viewed as Constitutional for the Government to seize private property?

Because in the strictest sense of the word, FDR did not actually "seize" anybody's gold. FDR bought the gold, at $20.67 an ounce.

Of course, "bought" equals "seized" in this case, but judges usually don't care if the average man is hurt by big government.

It's like the theft known as "eminent domain". If the Government wants your land, they - not you - set a price for the land, then they take it.

The same might happen with guns. Some bureaucrat in DC might decide that a Colt 45 is worth, say, $10. Then you can either sell you gun to the Government, or become an outlaw.

13 posted on 05/01/2013 8:18:58 AM PDT by Leaning Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: littleharbour

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Clause_Cases

The Gold Clause Cases were a series of actions brought before the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court narrowly upheld restrictions on the ownership of gold implemented by the administration of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in order to fight the Great Depression. The last in this series of cases is notable as the most recent Supreme Court opinion whose outcome was leaked to the press before the official release of its decision.


14 posted on 05/01/2013 9:27:36 AM PDT by abb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: littleharbour

The gold was confiscated for “public use” and its owners received “just compensation”. See Amendment 5.

That’s the Constitutional rationale, and that rationale actually holds up to scrutiny. Gold owners did receive dollars in an amount determined by the official, price-controlled value of gold that was the international definition of the dollar. Those dollars were still convertible to silver at the longstanding silver definition of the dollar: 371 4/16 grains of silver to the dollar. Of course, Roosevelt revalued gold shortly after confiscation.

It would be worse today: if gold were confiscated as in 1933, those who surrendered their gold would receive dollars that have no convertibility to silver or anything else.

That episode in history is one of a very long list of outrageous US government actions that began shortly after the Constitution was ratified. It really is a very flexible document when handled by clever jurists, politicians, and lawyers.


15 posted on 05/01/2013 9:50:09 AM PDT by Skepolitic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson