RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: More on HJR 192; Got (Lawful) Money?
- Jake wrote:
> I don't know why you'd even want to argue the point as the matter was<snip>
> settled over 70 years ago, after the "Bank Holiday of 1933" - see
> e.g., U.S. v. Bankers' Trust Co., 294 U.S. 240 (1935):
> We are not concerned with consequences, in the sense thatAnd that's how it was in 1935. But then Congress repealed HJR192 (maybe
> consequences, however serious, may excuse an invasion of
> constitutional right. We are concerned with the constitutional power
> of the Congress over the monetary system of the country and its
> attempted frustration. Exercising that power, the Congress has
> undertaken to establish a uniform currency, and parity between kinds
> of currency, and to make that currency, dollar for dollar, legal
> tender for the payment of debts. In the light of abundant experience,
> the Congress was entitled to choose such a uniform monetary system,
> and to reject a dual system, with respect to all obligations within
> the range of the exercise of its constitutional authority. The
> contention that these gold clauses are valid contracts and cannot be
> struck down proceeds upon the assumption that private parties, and
> states and municipalities, may make and enforce contracts which may
> limit that authority. Dismissing that untenable assumption, the facts
> must be faced. We think that it is clearly shown that these clauses
> interfere with the exertion of the power granted to the Congress, and
> certainly it is not established that the Congress arbitrarily or
> capriciously decided that such an interference existed.
> The judgment and decree, severally under review, are affirmed.
because it was obviously unconstitutional?) as amply proven herein. And
recent decisions prove it, by making reference to the two separate and
unequal monetary systems created by Congress and in plain sight to those
with eyes to see them today (one employer named "Kahre" comes to mind).
Even the IRS argues against the contentions of the case quoted from
1935. They claim a new $50 coin right from the mint can be worth $800
or more! That's parity?! No time needed for them to collect dust or
get rare or anything! Such is the world we live in today, where the
most ridiculous lies can be believed if the spokesperson is official
enough for the Rubes.
- Jake wrote:
> I don't see how Hagar is controlling & you're missing the point I wasThat is just not true. Who are you working for, Jake? You might want
> trying to make with cases the court dealt with in Bankers', which was
> simply that whatever Congress says "money" is, that's what it is &
> that's what you'll take, like it or not.
to study more history.
> Frog Farmer mentioned the Kahre case & I saw a similar deal when a guyYes, I mentioned it, and there is nothing "similar" about the "deal" at
> wanted to buy back his house that had been foreclosed on @ the
> sheriff's sale with silver coin. They said that's fine, but we'll
> only take it @ face value, not by weight & spot market price of the
the sheriff's sale. You miss the point entirely of using gold or silver
at a sheriff's sale. I'll leave that for you to discover.
> In other words, a $1 silver coin is $1; a $50 gold coin isIt may, but it doesn't have to. Imagine two sheriff's events, one
> $50; a $1 bill is $1; a $50 bill is $50 - you can write a check or do
> an electronic funds transfer too, but the dollar amount this house
> sells for will remain the same no matter what form is used.
populated with idiots and morons, and one populated with 90% idiots and
morons, and 10% law scholars. Do you seriously believe that one could
not have a different outcome than the other?! I can't believe that.
> The "under color of state law" claim is a separate issueAnd only if an idiot or moron decides to make it one. I'd bet they'd
waive the issue altogether. A student of law would most likely not get
> & when theWhich it is not, in legal tender cases and money issue cases. Let me
> matter is just down to what form of payment you'll accept,
ask you two non-Socratic non-rhetorical questions:
1. Is the act of "acceptance" a voluntary act because of the nature of
the word? (That's my understanding of the word.) If it is not your
understanding, please explain its mandatory nature within a complete
sentence or paragraph.
2. Do you recognize a difference between the concepts of "payment" and
> I don't see that you have an argument. Referring back to the Bankers'cases:
>No, it wasn't. It was designed to preserve what already was and had
> "The Constitution 'was designed to provide the same currency, having a
> uniform legal value in all the States.'
been throughout memorable history. The only change was on the face of
the coins. Now we have the government counterfeiting its people's own
coins! And violating the constitutions both state and federal on many
fronts. Show them a law, and they'll break it!
> It was for that reason thatValue meant the proportion of metals in the alloys, and the amounts of
> the power to regulate the value of money was conferred upon the
> federal government,
the metals in each coin. That was done and was never repealed. I hope
everyone understands that point.
> while the same power, as well as the power to emitIt wasn't "withdrawn"; it was denied. But it was never granted to the
> bills of credit, was withdrawn from the states.
> The states cannotApples and oranges. Money is what it was when the people adopted their
> declare what shall be money, or regulate its value. Whatever power
> there is over the currency is vested in the Congress."
constitutions. It's what they affirmed it was immediately thereafter
and has never been repealed.
As to "whatever power there is over the currency":
"Currency" is whatever is "current" as money BY LAW.
> is vested in the Congress.Their only power is to obey the law and keep it the same now and
forever, thus it is known as a standard" of weights and measures. The
word "dollar" is the name of the monetary unit that has a specific
weight and measure of a specific "value" (metallurgical purity). To
change the meaning of the word "dollar" would take a constitutional
Recent "new math" students have come to think in terms of what "old
math" students used to call "absolute numbers" where the "value" of "+5"
is the same as the value of "-5". This is THEIR problem!! Today, a
piece of paper representing the default of a promise to pay is taken by
recent graduates and arrivals as equal to actual payment in substance
which extinguishes the debt forever and does not pass it on to another
party. Again, this is THEIR problem!
And again, the repeal of HJR192 is so painful to the banking interests
that their shills suffer nearly 100% cognitive dissonance in regards to
that fact when discussing money (positive) and finance (negative).