[Deuce]

Currency- Any form of money in actual use as a medium of exchange.

Is a check currency by this definition? How about a credit card? In any event, we were discussing the issuance of currency. As I use that term, it applies to Continentals, Greenbacks, and post 1933 FRNs. The characteristic they all share is that they have the force of government behind them and can legally be issued without constraint. No banks prior to the Fed were granted such power.

A blanket prohibition on all governments like in the 2d amendment would have been established not one explicitly directed at the states.

Strict interpretation of the original intent of the constitution does not include an interpretation of what specific, individual framers probably preferred. Instead, one must look at the actual words used in the context of the language of the day. The 10th Amendment states, for example: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Doesn’t this mean: if the power wasn’t granted it wasn’t intended to be granted? Where, then, do you believe the Constitution granted the government the right to issue money in any form?

If only coins were to be issued (how is another question for you since a Mint was not mentioned) why would the phraseology have been "coin Money" rather than "issue coins" or "mint coins?" Had there been a desire to prevent the issuance of paper money that would have been made explicit since the writers were very familiar with the experience of the Continentals.

You confuse the verbs “issue” and “coin.” The phrase “coin money” supports my interpretation not yours. Money (even to Morris and Hamilton as their writings make abundantly and unambiguously clear) was coin. What we know as paper money, today, they called bills of credit. The evidence you quote above does not support your interpretation, but, rather, refutes it. Since Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 carefully distinguishes among the powers to “coin money”, “emit bills of credit” and “make anything but gold or silver….”, it is quite clear that these are different things and your interpretation which confuses them all lacks support.

BTW, within 3 years of the Constititution, Congress acted in the Coinage Act of 1792 to do all those things that were consistent with my interpretation and none of the things consistent with your interpretation. How do you explain that?

Non-metallic currency was clearly a means to use the power granted Congress to declare war and provide for the national defense.

This argument is specious. It says, in effect, anything that would improve a government’s ability to wage war is constitutional. Anything that can be demonstrated to help the war effort is, ipso facto, constitutional. So much for a strict interpretation of original intent.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The definition was from the American Heritage Dictionary. My answer to your questions would be no and no. You can limit the meaning to those you wish to but the common definition is different.

The fact that the constitution specifically prohibited the states from doing those things but did not prohibit the federal government tells me that it was not intended to limit the feds.

From any reading of constitutional law history it is clear that the 10th amendment was essentially irrelevent, playing no role in American law. It was meant only to apply to local and state law and regulations. Police powers.

All the founders, including Madison and Jefferson, admitted there were implied powers. A mint is constitutional though no mention of a mint is in the constitution.

Once again the prohibition of State issuance of bills of credit without a similiar one for the federal government tells me that the founders did not intend to prevent the feds from issuing them. How easy to have just stated "no Bills of credit are allowed to be issued by any government." But that was not done and for good reason. All the founders were well aware there was virtually no specie within the country. Thus, they were not inclined to shoot the nation in the foot from the beginning.

BTW within 2 yrs. of the federation's founding the U.S. created the Bank of the United States which issued paper currency. Twenty per cent of the bank stock was owned by the federal government.

It should be noted that destruction of the Bank unleashed a wave of inflation (over 13% per year) until the 2d Bank was chartered.

Anything necessary to carry out the enumerated powers and which is not forbidden by the Constitution nor opposed to the spirit of it is constitutional. Hamilton's analysis in his essay on the Constitutionality of the Bank written for Washington explains this with great clarity. However, the Law creating the Bank or a paper currency falls under the ability of Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."