Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › South Carolina wants separate currency for state
- This topic has 135 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 10 months ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 16, 2011 at 9:17 PM #668348February 16, 2011 at 10:31 PM #667212
greekfire
ParticipantAhhhh. I spent a good 30+ minutes this morning trying to craft an eloquent reply to Eugene’s post but got rejected from the Drupal Gatekeepers. Apparently I hit the Preview button one too many times and tripped off the spam blockers. I think my problem was I didn’t enter the CAPTCHA phrase. Lol-go figure. Anyways, here is my response FWIW:
Article 1, Section 8 says that the Congress shall have power (not supreme power) to; (5) COIN (not issue) money, regulate the value thereof, etc…
Coining money involves the use of metal. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coin) Article 1, Section 10 says that no State shall…make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. However, a Federal Reserve Note says that this note is legal tender for all debts public and private.
Amendment X says that powers not given to the United States (Congress, federal government, Federal Reserve, etc.) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress (or any of its agents such as the Fed) has the power to “issue” or “print” money.
February 16, 2011 at 10:31 PM #667274ParticipantAhhhh. I spent a good 30+ minutes this morning trying to craft an eloquent reply to Eugene’s post but got rejected from the Drupal Gatekeepers. Apparently I hit the Preview button one too many times and tripped off the spam blockers. I think my problem was I didn’t enter the CAPTCHA phrase. Lol-go figure. Anyways, here is my response FWIW:
Article 1, Section 8 says that the Congress shall have power (not supreme power) to; (5) COIN (not issue) money, regulate the value thereof, etc…
Coining money involves the use of metal. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coin) Article 1, Section 10 says that no State shall…make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. However, a Federal Reserve Note says that this note is legal tender for all debts public and private.
Amendment X says that powers not given to the United States (Congress, federal government, Federal Reserve, etc.) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress (or any of its agents such as the Fed) has the power to “issue” or “print” money.
February 16, 2011 at 10:31 PM #667882ParticipantAhhhh. I spent a good 30+ minutes this morning trying to craft an eloquent reply to Eugene’s post but got rejected from the Drupal Gatekeepers. Apparently I hit the Preview button one too many times and tripped off the spam blockers. I think my problem was I didn’t enter the CAPTCHA phrase. Lol-go figure. Anyways, here is my response FWIW:
Article 1, Section 8 says that the Congress shall have power (not supreme power) to; (5) COIN (not issue) money, regulate the value thereof, etc…
Coining money involves the use of metal. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coin) Article 1, Section 10 says that no State shall…make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. However, a Federal Reserve Note says that this note is legal tender for all debts public and private.
Amendment X says that powers not given to the United States (Congress, federal government, Federal Reserve, etc.) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress (or any of its agents such as the Fed) has the power to “issue” or “print” money.
February 16, 2011 at 10:31 PM #668020ParticipantAhhhh. I spent a good 30+ minutes this morning trying to craft an eloquent reply to Eugene’s post but got rejected from the Drupal Gatekeepers. Apparently I hit the Preview button one too many times and tripped off the spam blockers. I think my problem was I didn’t enter the CAPTCHA phrase. Lol-go figure. Anyways, here is my response FWIW:
Article 1, Section 8 says that the Congress shall have power (not supreme power) to; (5) COIN (not issue) money, regulate the value thereof, etc…
Coining money involves the use of metal. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coin) Article 1, Section 10 says that no State shall…make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. However, a Federal Reserve Note says that this note is legal tender for all debts public and private.
Amendment X says that powers not given to the United States (Congress, federal government, Federal Reserve, etc.) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress (or any of its agents such as the Fed) has the power to “issue” or “print” money.
February 16, 2011 at 10:31 PM #668363ParticipantAhhhh. I spent a good 30+ minutes this morning trying to craft an eloquent reply to Eugene’s post but got rejected from the Drupal Gatekeepers. Apparently I hit the Preview button one too many times and tripped off the spam blockers. I think my problem was I didn’t enter the CAPTCHA phrase. Lol-go figure. Anyways, here is my response FWIW:
Article 1, Section 8 says that the Congress shall have power (not supreme power) to; (5) COIN (not issue) money, regulate the value thereof, etc…
Coining money involves the use of metal. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coin) Article 1, Section 10 says that no State shall…make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. However, a Federal Reserve Note says that this note is legal tender for all debts public and private.
Amendment X says that powers not given to the United States (Congress, federal government, Federal Reserve, etc.) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress (or any of its agents such as the Fed) has the power to “issue” or “print” money.
February 16, 2011 at 11:30 PM #667217Eugene
ParticipantThe explicit objective behind sections 8 and 10 was to prevent having 13 (or 50, or whatever) independent currencies in each state, and the exchange-rate nightmare that comes with that. (Which is probably not that much of a nightmare today, when you can swipe a credit card through an ATM in Bangkok or Tokyo and have your bank account debited at the current exchange rate + a nominal exchange fee. Would’ve been a much bigger issue in 1789.)
Hence, the Constitution was written to allow two kinds of money:
– The U.S. dollar (whose value in terms of gold and silver is arbitrary and may be set by the Congress or its agent, or left to the market)
– Gold and silver coins.
At the time the Constitution was passed, paper money did not exist. (Hence, the word “coin.”) However, the Congress was authorized to regulate the value of the U.S. dollar. They could’ve ‘coined’ U.S. dollars out of copper and iron, if they wanted to. There’s no practical reason why they couldn’t have used paper.
February 16, 2011 at 11:30 PM #667279ParticipantThe explicit objective behind sections 8 and 10 was to prevent having 13 (or 50, or whatever) independent currencies in each state, and the exchange-rate nightmare that comes with that. (Which is probably not that much of a nightmare today, when you can swipe a credit card through an ATM in Bangkok or Tokyo and have your bank account debited at the current exchange rate + a nominal exchange fee. Would’ve been a much bigger issue in 1789.)
Hence, the Constitution was written to allow two kinds of money:
– The U.S. dollar (whose value in terms of gold and silver is arbitrary and may be set by the Congress or its agent, or left to the market)
– Gold and silver coins.
At the time the Constitution was passed, paper money did not exist. (Hence, the word “coin.”) However, the Congress was authorized to regulate the value of the U.S. dollar. They could’ve ‘coined’ U.S. dollars out of copper and iron, if they wanted to. There’s no practical reason why they couldn’t have used paper.
February 16, 2011 at 11:30 PM #667887ParticipantThe explicit objective behind sections 8 and 10 was to prevent having 13 (or 50, or whatever) independent currencies in each state, and the exchange-rate nightmare that comes with that. (Which is probably not that much of a nightmare today, when you can swipe a credit card through an ATM in Bangkok or Tokyo and have your bank account debited at the current exchange rate + a nominal exchange fee. Would’ve been a much bigger issue in 1789.)
Hence, the Constitution was written to allow two kinds of money:
– The U.S. dollar (whose value in terms of gold and silver is arbitrary and may be set by the Congress or its agent, or left to the market)
– Gold and silver coins.
At the time the Constitution was passed, paper money did not exist. (Hence, the word “coin.”) However, the Congress was authorized to regulate the value of the U.S. dollar. They could’ve ‘coined’ U.S. dollars out of copper and iron, if they wanted to. There’s no practical reason why they couldn’t have used paper.
February 16, 2011 at 11:30 PM #668025ParticipantThe explicit objective behind sections 8 and 10 was to prevent having 13 (or 50, or whatever) independent currencies in each state, and the exchange-rate nightmare that comes with that. (Which is probably not that much of a nightmare today, when you can swipe a credit card through an ATM in Bangkok or Tokyo and have your bank account debited at the current exchange rate + a nominal exchange fee. Would’ve been a much bigger issue in 1789.)
Hence, the Constitution was written to allow two kinds of money:
– The U.S. dollar (whose value in terms of gold and silver is arbitrary and may be set by the Congress or its agent, or left to the market)
– Gold and silver coins.
At the time the Constitution was passed, paper money did not exist. (Hence, the word “coin.”) However, the Congress was authorized to regulate the value of the U.S. dollar. They could’ve ‘coined’ U.S. dollars out of copper and iron, if they wanted to. There’s no practical reason why they couldn’t have used paper.
February 16, 2011 at 11:30 PM #668368ParticipantThe explicit objective behind sections 8 and 10 was to prevent having 13 (or 50, or whatever) independent currencies in each state, and the exchange-rate nightmare that comes with that. (Which is probably not that much of a nightmare today, when you can swipe a credit card through an ATM in Bangkok or Tokyo and have your bank account debited at the current exchange rate + a nominal exchange fee. Would’ve been a much bigger issue in 1789.)
Hence, the Constitution was written to allow two kinds of money:
– The U.S. dollar (whose value in terms of gold and silver is arbitrary and may be set by the Congress or its agent, or left to the market)
– Gold and silver coins.
At the time the Constitution was passed, paper money did not exist. (Hence, the word “coin.”) However, the Congress was authorized to regulate the value of the U.S. dollar. They could’ve ‘coined’ U.S. dollars out of copper and iron, if they wanted to. There’s no practical reason why they couldn’t have used paper.
February 17, 2011 at 6:28 AM #667237jpinpb
ParticipantI just think the Constitution back in 1789 was not considering the Federal Reserve intervening and/or taking control of monetary policy. I don’t think all that is factored into the Constitution. It’s a game changer, imo.
February 17, 2011 at 6:28 AM #667299ParticipantI just think the Constitution back in 1789 was not considering the Federal Reserve intervening and/or taking control of monetary policy. I don’t think all that is factored into the Constitution. It’s a game changer, imo.
February 17, 2011 at 6:28 AM #667907ParticipantI just think the Constitution back in 1789 was not considering the Federal Reserve intervening and/or taking control of monetary policy. I don’t think all that is factored into the Constitution. It’s a game changer, imo.
February 17, 2011 at 6:28 AM #668045ParticipantI just think the Constitution back in 1789 was not considering the Federal Reserve intervening and/or taking control of monetary policy. I don’t think all that is factored into the Constitution. It’s a game changer, imo.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.