indeed
Judge Andrew Napolitano has a quote relating to this: “How general is your welfare?”
Congress can regulate commerce. A central bank is needed to do that, and Congress can “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”.
Just to be clear, I’m not disputing a literalist/enumerated powers argument for the Constitution, I’m just saying that the people who basically say “if the constitution doesn’t say I CANT do it, I obviously can” have been winning for a long time.
Also, I think the Commerce Clause is one of the most abused parts of the Constitution, I don’t think the Founders ever intended it to be used to argue that the government should be able to control healthcare.
That only means the federal government can set the tax rate. It was an addition from the Articles of Confederation in which differing states were taxing variously to each other. The first central banks had no way of gaining establishment under such a clause therefore (has been known for most of the history of the U.S. - maybe the Supreme Court still understands this). The first central banks made their way in through the door of the ‘necessary and proper’ clause. That clause has been the stamp of approval for almost everything not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but again it is only to be necessary and proper if written word for word in the Constitution. From day one the Constitution was trashed so it doesn’t really matter.
That’s the necessary and proper clause and it only pertains, at least in the infancy of the government and the explicit meaning originally, that anything written in the Constitution under Article One Section 8 in which it outliness all the duties that Congress can carry forth. If it doesn’t say it word for word, then Congress was to have no power to enact it. If it’s not in the Judical or Executive Branches, then all else fell to the states. Originally, even up to the Civil War each individual state were mainly considered similar to their own countries/republics with an overarching Federal government to bind them all.
Congress can regulate commerce.
wouldnt this mean to make sure they all made gold and silver coin their legal tender?
if you have heard people say they love the constitution…and love the legal tender system that exists now…which i guess is different from what is decreed in the us constitution…then maybe you shoiuld ask those people.
if you mean gold and silver as “legal” tender or consitutional mandated COIN as fiat money…i guess those constitutin lovers just also happen to like gold and silver coin as money.
I don’t know if those two go together directly, but they both are written as obligations of the federal government.
I wasn’t sure what you said here. It states gold and silver, correct? And that’s not fiat money. I also know it states they were to regulate a standard measure of gold and silver for the coin which is price fixing anyways and that would have eventually stood in the way of free market dynamics due it’s a centrally planned standard measure of the weights and numerial value of the coins. They could never calculate the value of the gold and silver, stamp it, and then distribute it to keep in touch with the real market dynamics.
i have seen definitions of the word fiat that meant ‘by legal decree’…i wasnt sure if the original poster was referring to the fiat definition meaning “by legal or authoritative decree” or not.
The most fatal flaw of the Constitution was its giving monetary oversight to politicians. The Constitution represents a victory of the big government Federalists over their Anti-Federalist opponents. I do believe if we are going to have a constitution then it should be followed or abolished through its own due process. Most folks who love the Constitution haven’t read it. I have read parts. It is very dry reading. I carry one in my pocket frequently but would rather be riding than reading the Constitution. Let the market decide what money is.
No, congress was supposed to say that if you stamp $20 dollars on your coin, it has to weight x amount. That is all. Anyone can mint coins, congress says what a dollar is worth and that is the end of it. States can also issue their own currencies according to that act. Those currencies need only be gold and silver. The denomination only serves to make arithmetic easier.
I think the whole constitution is illegal though. I’m just saying if you follow it that is what it says.
“Section 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit…”
so is the act you speak of counter to this section??
They’re just being consistent: they love one piece of paper (the constitution) and they also love other pieces of paper (fiat money).
the constitution is online now too.