States cannot use paper money to pay off debt or emit bills of credit. Therefore their current transactions are all illegal. Our nations money was meant to based off of gold, silver, and copper. It wasn’t mean to be this inflationary. Our founding fathers saw the problem with perpetual debt. Every state uses paper money now to pay off their debt as opposed to using metal currencies. Their whole operations are illegitimate.
The coinage act of 1792- which is still authorized- permits only gold, silver and copper to be used as money. Nothing else can be used in financial transactions (http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/coinage1792.txt). So the actions of the fed are illegitimate. So not only is the system of money that states are using is illegal… but also we’re not supposed to have paper money based on nothing as our national currency anyways. It’s unconstitutional and illegal.
I don’t see why people who claim to love the constitution can be okay with fiat currency and what’s going on today. The nation was meant to have gold and silver as its national currency. So… I don’t know how the whole constitutional argument got overlooked.
Because they DON’T love the Constitution. They view it as a “living document” which is bullshit. How often can you unilaterally change the term of a contract claiming that it is a “living document”? The Founding Fathers were not perfect men, but they knew that if a government were to exist, it should extremely limited.
A fair argument, but obviously not strong enough to have stopped the creation of a central bank. It’s a shame that they didn’t put in the language against central banks. It would’ve saved us so much time and hardship.
and the states were to only make gold and silver coin (coins used as money too i guess) as legal tender…
so congress can coin money, states were to only make gold and silver coin as ‘legal tender’ but since the constitution says nothing about a central bank any congressional act conjuring one into existence was ok??
were there correspondences amongst the FFs specifically speaking out against a central bank like entity at the time of the consitutions writing?
Not ok. If it’s not written explicitly in Article One Section 8 (hopefully I don’t have the numbers backwards but it’s the explicit outline of what powers Congress has), then the state’s have the power according to Amendment Nine or Ten (the tenent stating if not given powers to federal government here-in then the power is of the state’s, etc…).
Jefferson saw that everything was going downhill and nobody was upholding the principles that they set-forth and even wrote in the Constitution. He quit as Secretary of State under George Washington has the Hamiltonian faction of huge federal power was ruling the roast and Jefferson didn’t want any part of it anymore.
I think you can relate this to the argument that people make when they use the “General Welfare” argument to pass things like universal health care, because, in their mind, health care falls into general welfare. What many people don’t understand is that “General Welfare” was only relating to things that were outlined in The Constitution. Since health care isn’t discussed in The Constitution, it doesn’t fall into the General Welfare category.