Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 19 Jan 2018 4:03 pm » wrote:

deezer shoove » 19 Jan 2018 3:59 pm » wrote:
Well, I expected you would cite precedence at the Supreme Court and their validation of the use of taxation.
Something better than a critique of the location of where I like to jig.

Supreme court said Bammycare was okie dokie. That's the keystone holding that entire charade together.
Certainly they must have mentioned taxes somewhere along the line...
I believe the concept has been around for a couple years.

So why is taxation okie dokie? And people that said "**** off" shower with their backs to the wall?

The scotus has never ruled on states' authority to compel payment in fed notes - no case on that issue has ever been heard.

But your conveyance of your opinion to nine men in dresses is duly noted.

Let's not lose focus on the fact the the supreme court never lied that peepee hates the rich - that was your shameful sellout.

"The scotus has never ruled on states' authority to compel payment in fed notes - no case on that issue has ever been heard."

Let it suffice to be noted that a paper medium of exchange in this country was denied the government, by not granting this power, in favor of gold and silver coin. Those who issue money into the marketplace were disappointed with this result, and since that time had continually sought to subvert the monetary system of this country, and replace it with a paper medium of exchange, and keep the gold and silver that was displaced by it. Although use of a paper medium of exchange was never granted the federal government, nor the State governments, a paper medium was continually in use, regardless of the denial. Many cases had been brought to the courts by those who were tendered depreciated banknotes marked "dollar" instead of the real silver dollar. More often than not, the gold and silver coin was upheld as the monetary standard in this country; until the civil war. The north was desperate for money to prosecute the war, and it was decided that, because of the exigency, and the desperate times, a United States Note could be issued into the marketplace which would serve, temporarily, as money until the exigency was over, when the notes would be retired, and the country would be returned to its original monetary standard. The notes were printed, and issued into the marketplace, and were termed "greenbacks". They depreciated, their lowest point reaching nearly a 70% depreciation as against the gold and silver coins of the country. History has shown that the Grant administration was extraordinarily corrupt. It was decided that the notes would be re-issued back into the marketplace instead of retiring them. Some who were tendered these notes, in payment of a debt, refused them, and a case was brought before the courts where argument was heard all over again concerning the constitutionality of paper money. Gold and silver coin was continually upheld as the exchange medium of the country until the President of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant, reconstituted the Supreme Court of the United States, and the case of Juilliard v Greenman was argued before the Court in 1884. It was noted in the statement of facts:

"Juilliard, a citizen of New York, brought an action against Greenman, a citizen of Connecticut, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendant, at his special instance and request, one hundred bales of cotton, of the value and for the agreed price of $5,122.90; and that the defendant agreed to pay that sum in cash on the delivery of the cotton, and had not paid the same or any part thereof, except that he had paid the sum of $22.90 on account, and was now justly indebted to the plaintiff therefor in the sum of $5,100; and demanding judgment for this sum with interest and costs. The defendant in his answer admitted the citizenship of the parties, the purchase and delivery of the cotton, and the agreement to pay therefor, as alleged; and averred that after the delivery of the cotton, he offered and tendered to the plaintiff, in full payment, $22.50 in gold coin of the United States, forty cents in silver coin of the United States, and two United States notes, one of the denomination of $5,000, and the other of the denomination of $100, of the description known as United States legal tender notes, purporting by recital thereon to be legal tender, at their respective face values, for all debts, public and private..."

Mr. Juilliard refused to accept the notes, and he, therefore, sued for full payment in money.

The Court, viewing government as a sovereign, with some of its powers limited by a constitution, rather than as a corporation with some powers granted by the States, declared that the constitution did not say that they could not use a paper money medium of exchange. The "necessary and proper" clause was trotted out again, and it was declared that the paper money was "necessary and proper" as an overall means toward encouraging commerce in this country. It was also declared that, through the power to borrow money, the government was qualified to issue its notes of security, regardless of their size, $2; $5; $10; $100, into the marketplace to be used as "legal tender" for the payment of all debts, public and private. Justice Gray, in delivering the opinion of the Court, also declared:

"So, under the power to coin money and to regulate its value, Congress may (as it did with regard to gold by the act of June 28th, 1834, ch. 95, and with regard to silver by the act of February 28th, 1878, ch. 20) issue coins of the same denomination as those already current by law, but of less intrinsic value than those, by reason of containing a less weight of the precious metals, and thereby enable debtors to discharge their debts by the payment of coins of the less real value."

deezer shoove » 19 Jan 2018 3:18 pm » wrote:Was it before 1943? That's when a book was published that I just recently read (at peepee's recommendation).
To paraphrase Harold Ramis in "Stripes", I'm willing to learn...

That's why I don't get the animosity about this. I really don't.
I have to assume his "delicate condition" forces his actions and responses.
OCD manifests itself to individual weaknesses and proclivities. He is OCD about green things, I think..

....your eyes may have glanced at voorhis' words but they have not $unk in yet...hear me now and believe me later...

...you sound like a pathetic wounded animal so let me treat you to a little secret of mine: ...i come here to engage in the/a 'competition of ideas about government' and to kick republicrat-level ***...i have found through much trial and error that the best way to get republicrat-level folks such as yourself to read/engage/respond is to criticize their ignorance, insult them, etc..it really gets the competititive juices flowing in the great 'competition of ideas about government'...simple human nature...

...of course this is not a tactic YOU should employ as to 'the great competition of ideas about money'...you have no 'game'/skill/knowledge here and players like me, cannon, ingo, indago, are always going to beat you up badly/embarrassingly until you arm yourself with some honest knowledge...

"You shall not pervert justice in measurement of length, weight, or quantity. You shall have true scales, true weights, true measures dry and liquid." — Leviticus 19 v 35 - The Bible

In the book of Micah, 6 v 10, God punished the tribe of Judah severely for using the "infamous false measure", "false scales", and a "bag of light weights".

Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Field delivered a scathing indictment of his bretheren on the bench in a lengthy dissenting opinion. He began by saying, "From the judgment of the court in this case, and from all the positions advanced in its support, I dissent." He declared:

The question of the power of Congress to impart the quality of legal tender to the notes of the United States, and thus make them money and a standard of value, is not new here. Unfortunately it has been too frequently before the court, and its latest decision, previous to this one, has never been entirely accepted and approved by the country. Nor should this excite surprise; for whenever it is declared that this government, ordained to establish justice, has the power to alter the condition of contracts between private parties, and authorize their payment or discharge in something different from that which the parties stipulated, thus disturbing the relations of commerce and the business of the community generally, the doctrine will not and ought not to be readily accepted. ...If there be anything in the history of the Constitution which can be established with moral certainty, it is that the framers of that instrument intended to prohibit the issue of legal tender notes both by the general government and by the States; and thus prevent interference with the contracts of private parties.

Mr. Justice Field reviewed the distribution of the Continental notes issued during the Revolution; notes which depreciated into practical worthlessness in the hands of those who accepted them, although it was declared by law that they would be accepted at par value with gold and silver coin. Justice Field noted:

...legislative declaration cannot make the promise of a thing the equivalent of the thing itself.

He noted the words of Justice Story, who wrote of "other laws" which were enacted in support of the "legal tender" laws:

"They entailed the most enormous evils on the country, and introduced a system of fraud, chicanery, and profligacy which destroyed all private confidence and all industry and enterprise."

Mr. Justice Field quoted from the works of George Bancroft on the History of the Formation of the Constitution, in Volume 2, page 134, noting that "authority to issue bills of credit that should be legal tender was refused to the general government by the vote of nine States against New Jersey and Maryland. It was Madison who decided the vote of Virginia, and he has left his testimony that 'the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender, either for public or private debts, was cut off.' ...So the adoption of the Constitution is to be the end forever of paper money, whether issued by the several States or by the United States". Justice Stephen Field then delivered the most scathing indictment of his fellow justices on the bench:

"For nearly three-quarters of a century after the adoption of the Constitution, and until the legislation during the recent civil war, no jurist and no statesman of any position in the country ever pretended that a power to impart the quality of legal tender to its notes was vested in the general government. There is no recorded word of even one in favor of its possessing the power. All conceded, as an axiom of constitutional law, that the power did not exist."

He recognized the exigency that existed because of a lack of a circulating medium to prosecute the war, but also noted that the "war merely increased the urgency for money; it did not add to the powers of the government nor change their nature; that if the power existed it might be equally exercised when a loan was made to meet ordinary expenses in time of peace as when vast sums were needed to support an army or a navy in time of war. The wants of the government could never be the measure of its powers." He then reiterated a timeworn axiom of political expediency:

"So it always happens that whenever a wrong principle of conduct, political or personal, is adopted on a plea of necessity, it will be afterwards followed on a plea of convenience."

He responded to the government debasing the value of the coin by declaring that "Arbitrary and profligate governments have often resorted to this miserable scheme of robbery". He noted that one of the purposes for the creation of the government, "as expressed in the preamble of the Constitution, was the establishment of justice, and not a line nor a word is found in that instrument which sanctions any intentional wrong to the citizen, either in war or in peace." Justice Field concluded his remarks by saying:

"From the decision of the court I see only evil likely to follow. There have been times within the memory of all of us when the legal tender notes of the United States were not exchangeable for more than one-half of their nominal value. The possibility of such depreciation will always attend paper money."

indago » 19 Jan 2018 11:12 pm » wrote:
"The scotus has never ruled on states' authority to compel payment in fed notes - no case on that issue has ever been heard."

Let it suffice to be noted that a paper medium of exchange in this country was denied the government, by not granting this power, in favor of gold and silver coin. Those who issue money into the marketplace were disappointed with this result, and since that time had continually sought to subvert the monetary system of this country, and replace it with a paper medium of exchange, and keep the gold and silver that was displaced by it. Although use of a paper medium of exchange was never granted the federal government, nor the State governments, a paper medium was continually in use, regardless of the denial. Many cases had been brought to the courts by those who were tendered depreciated banknotes marked "dollar" instead of the real silver dollar. More often than not, the gold and silver coin was upheld as the monetary standard in this country; until the civil war. The north was desperate for money to prosecute the war, and it was decided that, because of the exigency, and the desperate times, a United States Note could be issued into the marketplace which would serve, temporarily, as money until the exigency was over, when the notes would be retired, and the country would be returned to its original monetary standard. The notes were printed, and issued into the marketplace, and were termed "greenbacks". They depreciated, their lowest point reaching nearly a 70% depreciation as against the gold and silver coins of the country. History has shown that the Grant administration was extraordinarily corrupt. It was decided that the notes would be re-issued back into the marketplace instead of retiring them. Some who were tendered these notes, in payment of a debt, refused them, and a case was brought before the courts where argument was heard all over again concerning the constitutionality of paper money. Gold and silver coin was continually upheld as the exchange medium of the country until the President of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant, reconstituted the Supreme Court of the United States, and the case of Juilliard v Greenman was argued before the Court in 1884. It was noted in the statement of facts:

"Juilliard, a citizen of New York, brought an action against Greenman, a citizen of Connecticut, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendant, at his special instance and request, one hundred bales of cotton, of the value and for the agreed price of $5,122.90; and that the defendant agreed to pay that sum in cash on the delivery of the cotton, and had not paid the same or any part thereof, except that he had paid the sum of $22.90 on account, and was now justly indebted to the plaintiff therefor in the sum of $5,100; and demanding judgment for this sum with interest and costs. The defendant in his answer admitted the citizenship of the parties, the purchase and delivery of the cotton, and the agreement to pay therefor, as alleged; and averred that after the delivery of the cotton, he offered and tendered to the plaintiff, in full payment, $22.50 in gold coin of the United States, forty cents in silver coin of the United States, and two United States notes, one of the denomination of $5,000, and the other of the denomination of $100, of the description known as United States legal tender notes, purporting by recital thereon to be legal tender, at their respective face values, for all debts, public and private..."

Mr. Juilliard refused to accept the notes, and he, therefore, sued for full payment in money.

The Court, viewing government as a sovereign, with some of its powers limited by a constitution, rather than as a corporation with some powers granted by the States, declared that the constitution did not say that they could not use a paper money medium of exchange. The "necessary and proper" clause was trotted out again, and it was declared that the paper money was "necessary and proper" as an overall means toward encouraging commerce in this country. It was also declared that, through the power to borrow money, the government was qualified to issue its notes of security, regardless of their size, $2; $5; $10; $100, into the marketplace to be used as "legal tender" for the payment of all debts, public and private. Justice Gray, in delivering the opinion of the Court, also declared:

"So, under the power to coin money and to regulate its value, Congress may (as it did with regard to gold by the act of June 28th, 1834, ch. 95, and with regard to silver by the act of February 28th, 1878, ch. 20) issue coins of the same denomination as those already current by law, but of less intrinsic value than those, by reason of containing a less weight of the precious metals, and thereby enable debtors to discharge their debts by the payment of coins of the less real value."

Okay.

You done?

This is what I said, and what you AGREED I said (snapback to original intact):

Cannonpointer » 19 Jan 2018 4:03 pm » wrote: The scotus has never ruled on states' authority to compel payment in fed notes - no case on that issue has ever been heard.

This is what I obviously MEANT (and what I also said, in truncated but widely understood and widely used language):
"The scotus has never ruled on states' authority to compel payment in federal reserve notes - no case on that issue has ever been heard."

I was correct - 100% correct. Your anecdote about the GOVERNMENT - not private banks, but the GOVERNMENT - having been found by the SCOTUS to be competent to issue fiat currency does not even address - much less refute - the above statement. Still, thanks for sharing. I will admit that your post was very interesting, if juuust off-topic.

It's worth noting that I have never questioned - and indeed, have championed - the right of the GOVERNMENT to issue fiat currency. I am gratified to learn that the sense of the SCOTUS concurs with my own reasoning in the matter.

As an addendum, JUST in case you doubt my claim that I have agreed with the position the SCOTUS took in the case you bring to our attention, here's proof from this very thread:

Cannonpointer » 19 Jan 2018 4:13 pm » wrote:Gubmint just needs to own currency issuance - then they won't need to tax.

Pretty clear that I am referring to fiat currency, as I point out that the government "won't need to tax."

Cannonpointer » 20 Jan 2018 2:24 am » wrote:off-topic...

Not really! As noted in the opinion of the Court, it is stated on the Greenback notes: "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private". California and Oregon refused to recognize this, declaring that it violated their State Constitutions.

peepee » 19 Jan 2018 11:24 pm » wrote:

deezer shoove » 19 Jan 2018 3:18 pm » wrote:Was it before 1943? That's when a book was published that I just recently read (at peepee's recommendation).
To paraphrase Harold Ramis in "Stripes", I'm willing to learn...

That's why I don't get the animosity about this. I really don't.
I have to assume his "delicate condition" forces his actions and responses.
OCD manifests itself to individual weaknesses and proclivities. He is OCD about green things, I think..

....your eyes may have glanced at voorhis' words but they have not $unk in yet...hear me now and believe me later...

...you sound like a pathetic wounded animal so let me treat you to a little secret of mine: ...i come here to engage in the/a 'competition of ideas about government' and to kick republicrat-level ***...i have found through much trial and error that the best way to get republicrat-level folks such as yourself to read/engage/respond is to criticize their ignorance, insult them, etc..it really gets the competititive juices flowing in the great 'competition of ideas about government'...simple human nature...

...of course this is not a tactic YOU should employ as to 'the great competition of ideas about money'...you have no 'game'/skill/knowledge here and players like me, cannon, ingo, indago, are always going to beat you up badly/embarrassingly until you arm yourself with some honest knowledge...

So you came here to argue. Got it.
Also to pretend to "help" through insult. Got that, too.

I was honest about this topic from the beginning to several people.
I spoke my mind, clearly indicating an interest of sorts, without claiming expertise.

You want to employ those tactics of **** Chat Room Money Expert?
Go ahead.
I'll lose interest because of your need to appear to win. We don't need to continue.
You have already staked out your version of like-minded experts here. Talk to them.

Maybe you're a millionaire, so extensive is your expertise. Maybe not. Just a bookworm with a fetish...
You have let your people skills ruin our conversation.
Your hubris about being single-minded is unpleasant.

Put me on whatever list you want.
What you think now has become more irrelevant than before I tried showing interest.

You guys always end up at the same place it seems to me. Doing nothing; playing "Misery Loves Company".

CP makes sense when he actually defended you. I backed off my peepee-hates-the-rich ****.
His contention was that you are "agitating for honest money".
As useless as that hobby is, I find his description of you better than anything you have said.

That's why I'd rather give him a shot in the bluster-at-each-other contests here.

Termin8tor » 19 Jan 2018 10:47 am » wrote:
Not to annoy you with reality, but growth is already accelerating to roughly 4%, and it's highly unlikely that moderate rate hikes will slow that down.

We are in the Trump Boom and will be for years.

Yes, we know you would be far happier if you'd been able to participate in Stalin's genocide.

Trump himself estimated around 3% for 2018 overall (compared to 2.6% for economists), not 4%, which was only the last 2 quarters.

Rate hikes will indeed clamp down on inflation, which is necessary for a healthy economy and rising wages. This isn't the 90's where the tech economy coiled from its spring despite 3-6% rates.

Why do you think Trump nominated Powell and not Taylor? He knows delaying rate hikes would allow inflation and wage increases to take over (both of which Trump sees as a positive, he isn't an idiot). Powell wants 1.5-2% rates, Taylor wants 4-5% (according to the "Taylor rule").

Reality slaps you in the face again.

Dantev2 » 20 Jan 2018 3:37 pm » wrote:

Termin8tor » 19 Jan 2018 10:47 am » wrote:Not to annoy you with reality, but growth is already accelerating to roughly 4%, and it's highly unlikely that moderate rate hikes will slow that down.

We are in the Trump Boom and will be for years.


Yes, we know you would be far happier if you'd been able to participate in Stalin's genocide.

Trump himself estimated around 3% for 2018 overall (compared to 2.6% for economists), not 4%, which was only the last 2 quarters.

I was referring to the last quarter of last year, which is estimated to be around 4%, implying this year might well be the same.

Rate hikes will indeed clamp down on inflation, which is necessary for a healthy economy and rising wages. This isn't the 90's where the tech economy coiled from its spring.

Why do you think Trump nominated Powell and not Taylor? He knows delaying rate hikes would allow inflation and wage increases to take over (both of which Trump sees as a positive, he isn't an idiot).

Reality slaps you in the face again.

Economic growth only relies on inflation in Liberal Economics, which is dead, Dim. I don't think you have much idea what Powell will do.

Liberal economists trashed Trump's tax cuts and overall economic plan. How'd that work out?

I don't believe the moderate coming rates will have much effect on growth relative to very significant deregulation, tax cuts, gradual diminishing of Obamacare and other pro-growth policies.

The Trump Boom has begun.

And given that your prediction hasn't happened, but the growth I predicted has, what are you babbling about "reality slapping me in the face," Dim?

How **** stupid.

Termin8tor » 20 Jan 2018 3:50 pm » wrote:
I was referring to the last quarter of last year, which is estimated to be around 4%, implying this year might well be the same.


Economic growth only relies on inflation in Liberal Economics, which is dead, Dim. I don't think you have much idea what Powell will do.

Liberal economists trashed Trump's tax cuts and overall economic plan. How'd that work out?

I don't believe the moderate coming rates will have much effect on growth relative to very significant deregulation, tax cuts, gradual diminishing of Obamacare and other pro-growth policies.

The Trump Boom has begun.

And given that your prediction hasn't happened, but the growth I predicted has, what are you babbling about "reality slapping me in the face," Dim?

How **** stupid.

Predictions are as empty as your head. Be sure to tell us how many years this "Trump boom" will last and provide an estimated CAGR so we can measure the accuracy of your statements.

Last I checked your predictions under Bush were off by a mile.

Dantev2 » 20 Jan 2018 3:57 pm » wrote:

Termin8tor » 20 Jan 2018 3:50 pm » wrote:Liberal economists trashed Trump's tax cuts and overall economic plan. How'd that work out?

I don't believe the moderate coming rates will have much effect on growth relative to very significant deregulation, tax cuts, gradual diminishing of Obamacare and other pro-growth policies.

The Trump Boom has begun.

And given that your prediction hasn't happened, but the growth I predicted has, what are you babbling about "reality slapping me in the face," Dim?

How **** stupid.

Predictions are as empty as your head.

Empty? Are you lying or just plain stupid?

That only shows how clueless you are. 250 years of accepted Economics supports the idea that cutting tax rates and cutting appropriate regulations stimulates economic growth. You even agreed with the tax cut tenet, Dim.
If you don't know that, you don't know much of anything. But we knew that.

Be sure to tell us how many years this "Trump boom" will last and provide an estimated CAGR so we can measure the accuracy of your statements.

The boom will last until bad government policy or some huge foreign event ends it.

Or if as I do not expect, Trump takes a huge turn toward protectionism, which would be destructive.

I can't predict the future.

Last I checked your predictions under Bush were off by a mile.

I didn't predict the Financial Freeze. Almost no one did.

Other than that, I believe I was quite accurate.

Cite anything I got wrong.

GeorgeWashington » 06 Nov 2017 5:12 pm » wrote:
I’ll give it a shot...

Capitalism is a political and economic system in which governments favor certain industry cartels through legislation and welfare from the public treasury

I'm just going to quote this from now until death because I grow weary of explaining this.

indago » 19 Jan 2018 11:12 pm » wrote:

Cannonpointer » 19 Jan 2018 4:03 pm » wrote:

deezer shoove » 19 Jan 2018 3:59 pm » wrote:
Well, I expected you would cite precedence at the Supreme Court and their validation of the use of taxation.
Something better than a critique of the location of where I like to jig.

Supreme court said Bammycare was okie dokie. That's the keystone holding that entire charade together.
Certainly they must have mentioned taxes somewhere along the line...
I believe the concept has been around for a couple years.

So why is taxation okie dokie? And people that said "**** off" shower with their backs to the wall?

The scotus has never ruled on states' authority to compel payment in fed notes - no case on that issue has ever been heard.

But your conveyance of your opinion to nine men in dresses is duly noted.

Let's not lose focus on the fact the the supreme court never lied that peepee hates the rich - that was your shameful sellout.

"The scotus has never ruled on states' authority to compel payment in fed notes - no case on that issue has ever been heard."

Let it suffice to be noted that a paper medium of exchange in this country was denied the government, by not granting this power, in favor of gold and silver coin. Those who issue money into the marketplace were disappointed with this result, and since that time had continually sought to subvert the monetary system of this country, and replace it with a paper medium of exchange, and keep the gold and silver that was displaced by it. Although use of a paper medium of exchange was never granted the federal government, nor the State governments, a paper medium was continually in use, regardless of the denial. Many cases had been brought to the courts by those who were tendered depreciated banknotes marked "dollar" instead of the real silver dollar. More often than not, the gold and silver coin was upheld as the monetary standard in this country; until the civil war. The north was desperate for money to prosecute the war, and it was decided that, because of the exigency, and the desperate times, a United States Note could be issued into the marketplace which would serve, temporarily, as money until the exigency was over, when the notes would be retired, and the country would be returned to its original monetary standard. The notes were printed, and issued into the marketplace, and were termed "greenbacks". They depreciated, their lowest point reaching nearly a 70% depreciation as against the gold and silver coins of the country. History has shown that the Grant administration was extraordinarily corrupt. It was decided that the notes would be re-issued back into the marketplace instead of retiring them. Some who were tendered these notes, in payment of a debt, refused them, and a case was brought before the courts where argument was heard all over again concerning the constitutionality of paper money. Gold and silver coin was continually upheld as the exchange medium of the country until the President of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant, reconstituted the Supreme Court of the United States, and the case of Juilliard v Greenman was argued before the Court in 1884. It was noted in the statement of facts:

"Juilliard, a citizen of New York, brought an action against Greenman, a citizen of Connecticut, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendant, at his special instance and request, one hundred bales of cotton, of the value and for the agreed price of $5,122.90; and that the defendant agreed to pay that sum in cash on the delivery of the cotton, and had not paid the same or any part thereof, except that he had paid the sum of $22.90 on account, and was now justly indebted to the plaintiff therefor in the sum of $5,100; and demanding judgment for this sum with interest and costs. The defendant in his answer admitted the citizenship of the parties, the purchase and delivery of the cotton, and the agreement to pay therefor, as alleged; and averred that after the delivery of the cotton, he offered and tendered to the plaintiff, in full payment, $22.50 in gold coin of the United States, forty cents in silver coin of the United States, and two United States notes, one of the denomination of $5,000, and the other of the denomination of $100, of the description known as United States legal tender notes, purporting by recital thereon to be legal tender, at their respective face values, for all debts, public and private..."

Mr. Juilliard refused to accept the notes, and he, therefore, sued for full payment in money.

The Court, viewing government as a sovereign, with some of its powers limited by a constitution, rather than as a corporation with some powers granted by the States, declared that the constitution did not say that they could not use a paper money medium of exchange. The "necessary and proper" clause was trotted out again, and it was declared that the paper money was "necessary and proper" as an overall means toward encouraging commerce in this country. It was also declared that, through the power to borrow money, the government was qualified to issue its notes of security, regardless of their size, $2; $5; $10; $100, into the marketplace to be used as "legal tender" for the payment of all debts, public and private. Justice Gray, in delivering the opinion of the Court, also declared:

"So, under the power to coin money and to regulate its value, Congress may (as it did with regard to gold by the act of June 28th, 1834, ch. 95, and with regard to silver by the act of February 28th, 1878, ch. 20) issue coins of the same denomination as those already current by law, but of less intrinsic value than those, by reason of containing a less weight of the precious metals, and thereby enable debtors to discharge their debts by the payment of coins of the less real value."

Where do you come up with this ****?



Constitution of the United States of America
Section 8
Clause 5

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

The understanding from the start was paper money was "coined" and never was challenged in court.

Dantev2 » 21 Jan 2018 8:51 am » wrote:

GeorgeWashington » 06 Nov 2017 5:12 pm » wrote:
I’ll give it a shot...

Capitalism is a political and economic system in which governments favor certain industry cartels through legislation and welfare from the public treasury

I'm just going to quote this from now until death because I grow weary of explaining this.

Dantev2 » 21 Jan 2018 8:51 am » wrote:

GeorgeWashington » 06 Nov 2017 5:12 pm » wrote:
I’ll give it a shot...

Capitalism is a political and economic system in which governments favor certain industry cartels through legislation and welfare from the public treasury

I'm just going to quote this from now until death because I grow weary of explaining this.

Thus proving how brain dead you are!!!

Sgt Bilko » 21 Jan 2018 3:00 pm » wrote:

indago » 19 Jan 2018 11:12 pm » wrote:

Cannonpointer » 19 Jan 2018 4:03 pm » wrote: The scotus has never ruled on states' authority to compel payment in fed notes - no case on that issue has ever been heard.

But your conveyance of your opinion to nine men in dresses is duly noted.

Let's not lose focus on the fact the the supreme court never lied that peepee hates the rich - that was your shameful sellout.

"The scotus has never ruled on states' authority to compel payment in fed notes - no case on that issue has ever been heard."

Let it suffice to be noted that a paper medium of exchange in this country was denied the government, by not granting this power, in favor of gold and silver coin. Those who issue money into the marketplace were disappointed with this result, and since that time had continually sought to subvert the monetary system of this country, and replace it with a paper medium of exchange, and keep the gold and silver that was displaced by it. Although use of a paper medium of exchange was never granted the federal government, nor the State governments, a paper medium was continually in use, regardless of the denial. Many cases had been brought to the courts by those who were tendered depreciated banknotes marked "dollar" instead of the real silver dollar. More often than not, the gold and silver coin was upheld as the monetary standard in this country; until the civil war. The north was desperate for money to prosecute the war, and it was decided that, because of the exigency, and the desperate times, a United States Note could be issued into the marketplace which would serve, temporarily, as money until the exigency was over, when the notes would be retired, and the country would be returned to its original monetary standard. The notes were printed, and issued into the marketplace, and were termed "greenbacks". They depreciated, their lowest point reaching nearly a 70% depreciation as against the gold and silver coins of the country. History has shown that the Grant administration was extraordinarily corrupt. It was decided that the notes would be re-issued back into the marketplace instead of retiring them. Some who were tendered these notes, in payment of a debt, refused them, and a case was brought before the courts where argument was heard all over again concerning the constitutionality of paper money. Gold and silver coin was continually upheld as the exchange medium of the country until the President of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant, reconstituted the Supreme Court of the United States, and the case of Juilliard v Greenman was argued before the Court in 1884. It was noted in the statement of facts:

"Juilliard, a citizen of New York, brought an action against Greenman, a citizen of Connecticut, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendant, at his special instance and request, one hundred bales of cotton, of the value and for the agreed price of $5,122.90; and that the defendant agreed to pay that sum in cash on the delivery of the cotton, and had not paid the same or any part thereof, except that he had paid the sum of $22.90 on account, and was now justly indebted to the plaintiff therefor in the sum of $5,100; and demanding judgment for this sum with interest and costs. The defendant in his answer admitted the citizenship of the parties, the purchase and delivery of the cotton, and the agreement to pay therefor, as alleged; and averred that after the delivery of the cotton, he offered and tendered to the plaintiff, in full payment, $22.50 in gold coin of the United States, forty cents in silver coin of the United States, and two United States notes, one of the denomination of $5,000, and the other of the denomination of $100, of the description known as United States legal tender notes, purporting by recital thereon to be legal tender, at their respective face values, for all debts, public and private..."

Mr. Juilliard refused to accept the notes, and he, therefore, sued for full payment in money.

The Court, viewing government as a sovereign, with some of its powers limited by a constitution, rather than as a corporation with some powers granted by the States, declared that the constitution did not say that they could not use a paper money medium of exchange. The "necessary and proper" clause was trotted out again, and it was declared that the paper money was "necessary and proper" as an overall means toward encouraging commerce in this country. It was also declared that, through the power to borrow money, the government was qualified to issue its notes of security, regardless of their size, $2; $5; $10; $100, into the marketplace to be used as "legal tender" for the payment of all debts, public and private. Justice Gray, in delivering the opinion of the Court, also declared:

"So, under the power to coin money and to regulate its value, Congress may (as it did with regard to gold by the act of June 28th, 1834, ch. 95, and with regard to silver by the act of February 28th, 1878, ch. 20) issue coins of the same denomination as those already current by law, but of less intrinsic value than those, by reason of containing a less weight of the precious metals, and thereby enable debtors to discharge their debts by the payment of coins of the less real value."

Where do you come up with this ****?

Point out the "****".

indago » 20 Jan 2018 5:23 am » wrote:
Not really! As noted in the opinion of the Court, it is stated on the Greenback notes: "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private". California and Oregon refused to recognize this, declaring that it violated their State Constitutions.

I happen to agree with oregon and cali - but it's still irrelevant.

The issue I raised was whether the court had declared fed notes legal - not greenbacks.

It hasn't.

That's why you hadda cite an irrelevant case - no relevant case exists.

Termin8tor » 20 Jan 2018 3:50 pm » wrote: Liberal Economics, which is dead, Dim.

Under FDR's game rules, this nation never had a bank failure which could not be handled by the FDIC.

As soon as we elected another bull moose republican - ron reagan - we immediately began having such failures., over and over and over. Republicans are the bail out queens.

Termin8tor » 20 Jan 2018 3:50 pm » wrote: I predicted

Clemtard predictions?

Thanks for asking.

Termin8tor » 20 Jan 2018 4:17 pm » wrote: I didn't predict the Financial Freeze. Almost no one did.

Other than that, I believe I was quite accurate.

Cite anything I got wrong.

Always happy to oblige a retard.

Cannonpointer » 22 Jan 2018 1:40 am » wrote:Under FDR's game rules, this nation never had a bank failure which could not be handled by the FDIC.

As soon as we elected a progressive republican - reagan - we immediately began having such failures., over and over and over. Republicans are the bail out queens.

Bank credit card charge offs rose a whopping 20% in 4Q 2017.

https://www.ft.com/content/bafdd504-fd2 ... 9be7f3120a

The Fed is set to hike rates again soon. Clam told you the economy is fine without the toddler training wheels (QE).

Edit: 2017 whole not just 4Q