citizen-times.com — After years of allowing its existence and even acknowledging its legitimacy, the U.S. federal government has now apparently changed its mind and is going after the Liberty Dollar with prosecutions. The Liberty Dollar is based on precious metals as the Constitution explicitly demands, unlike government-issued fiat Federal Reserve notes.
Jun 5, 2009 View in Crawl 4
hortnonJun 6, 2009
No stateNo stateNo stateNo stateNo stateNo stateNo stateNo stateNo stateNo stateCan you read?
njonJun 7, 2009Submitter
Hortnon said, "Since "legal tender" is not defined in the Constitution, a US Code can define it and we must be held to it. "What an absurd statist suggestion. No, the federal government can't just 'define' things outside the bounds of the Constitution itself; that would give them nearly unlimited power, which is precisely what the Constitution was meant to AVOID. See <a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7SpA2Qe3FM">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7SpA2Qe3FM</a>
njonJun 8, 2009Submitter
First of all, the provision you cited refers to FOREIGN gold and silver coins. The Liberty Dollar is not foreign. And secondly, Congress has no legitimate authority to claim that Federal Reserve notes are legitimate because Congress had no authority to create the Federal Reserve in the first place. Federal Reserve notes are bills of credit; they are based on debt, which if you study early American history you'll see is something the founders did not want.
hortnonJun 8, 2009
"which if you study early American history you'll see is something the founders did not want."Just because they didn't want it doesn't mean...well, anything. Law is what's important, here.The legal tender law specifically cites Federal Reserve notes as what is legal tender."Congress had no authority to create the Federal Reserve in the first place"Prove it...
njonJun 8, 2009Submitter
"Just because they didn't want it doesn't mean...well, anything. Law is what's important, here."This shows your lack of understanding as to history and Constitutional civics. The Constitution is supreme. If, in the construction of the Constitution the framers and the society (which agreed to the Constitution) ordained a government structure to avoid a debtors' monetary system --- which is the case --- then Congress has no authority to enact a debtors' monetary system apart from a Constitutional amendment. This general principle of Constitutional hermeneutics (that is to say, how society understood the Constitution at the time it was ratified) is explained at the video I already referenced: <a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7SpA2Qe3FM">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7SpA2Qe3FM</a>Because the Constitutional structure of the monetary system was intended to prevent a debtors' system, a debtors' system is illegal apart from an amendment.And prove it? Nothing in the Constitution says anything about a central bank; there, it's proven. Congress has the authority to control monetary policy under article I, section 8; they have no power to delegate that authority to someone else (in this case, central bankers) by statute; it would require a Constitutional amendment, which they don't have.
njonJun 8, 2009Submitter
God doesn't bless injustice.
hortnonJun 9, 2009
Ok, you want to go by two different standards here, and I hope you understand that.a) The intent of the framers (not written explicitly into the Constitution)This is valid, but not law-binding. The framers intended blacks to be worth less than a white person. Does that make it right for all time?b) The letter of the law (only what's written in the Constitution)If you go this route, then please describe what to do with the Border Patrol, FBI, Coast Guard, etc. The Constitution explicitly calls for an Army and a Navy ONLY.Please, pick a side.