Thursday, January 19, 2006

10 Easy Questions About Money

Watch out for a tsumani of inflated Federal Reserve currency starting about springtime.

As the fixed-income crowd shells out more and more paper dollars for the same goods and services, some might actually start looking at what the Constitution says about money. (The quick course is my little book "The Miracle On Main Street," if you can find a copy. It's almost out of print.)

Thinking that in the original edition there had been a section of ten questions to ask any judge, James, a 6th-edition MOMS reader, asked me to reiterate them. Well, there were no ten questions, but I sat down and thought about it, and they just wrote themselves.

I don't envision posing these in a courtroom, but rather in a fireside chat with a friend who happens to be a judge (or maybe practices law). Judges resent surly questions, and can ignore them with impunity. So be careful with these things.

1. Can Congress pass a law that would cause a State to violate the Constitution?

2. Can a State declare anything whatsoever to be a legal tender for all debts public and private?

3. Can Congress declare anything whatsoever to be a legal tender for all debts public and private?

4. Does the Constitution declare anything but gold and silver coin to be a legal tender for all debts public and private?

5. Does Congress have any power not given it by the Constitution?

6. Can a State do something the Constitution denies it power to do?

7. Has Article I Section 10 of the Constitution been amended?

8. Has any Supreme Court decision rendered null and void the provisions of Article I Section 10 of the Constitution?

9. If Congress cannot cause a State to violate the Constitution, and if neither a State nor Congress can make any thing but gold and silver coin a legal tender for the payment of all debts public and private, and if the Constitution does not empower Congress to employ a monetary system other than consists of gold and silver coin, then why does Congress provide, and State and federal courts enforce payment of debts in, a monetary system which the Constitution prohibits?

10. How should a United States citizen exercise the civil right to the monetary system already provided by the Constitution but denied by Congress and the States?


Blogger sovereign said...

Great list !!

Be careful on the claim of "U.S. Citizen". Most people innocently use this term yet the term is defined in statutory code (i.e. USC) as something most people are not and don't want to be; namely under exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. [FYI: THe people of the states are not under jurisdiction of COngress].Words of advice: Claim only what you can prove. For most people this is birth in a particular state so I successfulyy use this on govt. forms: "COunsel has advised me to state what I know to be true. I have in my possession a birth certificate that identifies my birth in the state of XXX."

Watching out for govt usurpation,

9:55 AM  
Blogger Bob Lock said...

As always, you crystallize complex issues and make them understandable by the unwashed masses. We need to catch up on things. I will call you.

All my best,

Bob Lock

11:52 AM  
Blogger malegolf said...

I still have my copy of Miracle on Main Street, and I think I have some POMC's, if not I can get a copy from the Sate of Indiana........... These questions are good, I know the answers, do the younger people? This would be a good issue for the high schools to discuss in history class.....


2:07 PM  
Blogger Rafe said...

The talk of MOMS and POMCs brought me to an odd mathematical conclusion re: timing. I'm wondering if inflation isn't related to the kondratieff wave theory, but on a half-wave cycle. The Kondratiff wave predicts a war every 54 years. The theory kinda got shot apart in the 20th century - pre-empted by multiple hostilities. But on a longer term basis, it still seems valid. It's been about 27 years since the high rates of inflation led you to pen MOMS and invent POMCs. That's half a K-wave.
Paper money is a war power. Always has been (well, at least since paper got cheaper than metals). Can you say, "Continental" and "Greenback?" The current trick was to one-step remove this war power to the Fed in 1914, to obscure it. Treasury has to show its books of account, "from time to time." Fed banks don't. Still, it's all premised on war powers. Until WWI there weren't any FRns in circulation. Why? Because it wasn't until that war that the Fed gained "fractional reserve" power (The 1913 Act underwent a big amendment in 1918 - including the removal of the 20 year term of the FRBs' corporate charters).
So, there's a caveat answer to a couple of your questions regarding legislative powers. Once Congress declares that a state of war exists, the Constitutional premises can be obviated, those being civil, not martial concepts.
Then we add in the 14th Amendment, which prohibits the questioning of the validity of public (Federal) debt in any place. The Fed banks carry that debt and charge usury for it. It's rather obvious that if one can't "question" a fraud, the only conclusion has to be that it's not a fraud, i.e. it's "valid." (A valid debt is fully - not fractionally - collateralized by tangible assets).
The 14th also established a Bill of Attainder, attainting a class of people with a disability only capable of removal by the legislature. That makes the 14th a martial law. Without war it would go "void."
The States gave up their war powers via the Constitution. They are limited at all times to making only gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debt - unless given leave by martial power at the Federal level.
The Constitution is a very confusing document as it doesn't really address war powers. It can't. War powers are whatever they desire themselves to be. It's a rather civil document and civil law doesn't govern martial law. It's doubly confusing to civil people, as we don't contemplate martial powers. We don't like to think about war.
The ROEs do. Nothing makes them happier than a good long war. It's the easiest way to control evil.
Oh, and I'll send an ounce of silver to anyone who can show me the Senate ratified Peace Treaty that ended WWI (and WWII) with Germany. There's none. That "legal" state of war continues.
Inflation is a war power. That sucks, but that's how it plays. It's the only way it can play. When you hesitate to accept that conclusion, repeat after me, "Continental, Greenback, Continental, Greenback, Continental, Greenback - FRn."
Could be the the kondratieff wave theory failed because there's no cycle left when war becomes permanent. But the 27 year half-wave might still keep running.
Maybe I'll call it the Saussy Wave.
Your questions are good "civil questions." Any civil man would arrive at the same answers that you do. But the uncivil man (including the judge you mention) has a different premise available to his syllogism. He won't state that premise. He'll just state the conclusion.
That's been going on since Juliard v Greenman. If he stated the premise, that would demonstrate that he'd dared question the validity of the public debt. And that would be a perjury.
Just a thought,

3:04 AM  
Blogger David Beck said...

As you pointed out so succinctly in ROE, the United States is essentially a Catholic operation formally designed and mobilized to manage a nation of evildoers. What difference does it make whether it uses paper slips or shiny yellow rocks to record the transactions of its inhabitants.

The result will always be the same: people abjectly fretting about how someone with whom they are at war (the perenniel condition of the evildoer) is tricking them out of "what's theirs," so they are always cheating a bit in those transactions, thus the unending inflation. When the brutal laws of supply and demand whack them across the head, they agonize further and the battle rages on.

One living fruitfully in God's economy will honor and respect another's productive capacity because he loves another, identifies the God-infused talents within that other, and knows that this activity brings phenomenal abundance for all. Look closely, how much money (slips, rocks, what-have-you) was involved in the riches of the Acts 2 community?


8:38 PM  
Blogger David Beck said...

Whoa, hey, in my post there I forgot to mention something interesting regarding the whole Constitutional issue. Read Rosa Brooks piece in the LA Times today (1/20/06). Professor of constitutional law, she does nothing less than confess that it all really means nothing. All the people administering the law, even the most sacredly unbias impartial judges are just making it all up as they go. She resigns that really, it's all just theology.


8:43 PM  
Blogger Truthbuyer said...

Great piece!
Maybe I have a plausible answer to your question about how govt. does what it supposedly is not authorized to do.
Rulers of evil are, at best conflicted. According to the premise of your book, they are there simply as a result of their willful division from the only One possessing true Unity. And this fingerprint of division stamps everything they undertake. Paul, in his letter to Timothy, characterized them as a group that "oppose themselves." And anyone who acts in the same way is referred to as "taken captive by him [Satan] at his will."
This truly describes the American political system, a system that opposes itself by elevating the sanctity of two major parties. (Washington's farewell address contains his prophetic warning about this very thing) Though both parties are American, they oppose each other and promote that fact.
Ultimately, these same legislators and other government actors cannot but perform in a manner which reflects the very nature of their earthly founder, Cain. The same liberty to govern given to them by their Creator is the vehicle by which they manipulate their own system to bring others into subjection to them. Appearing to break the law, these leaders are branded by patriots as "traitors", never realizing that their opposition has just granted permission to these same leaders to administer Romans 13 judgment against their patriotic, but conflicted pronouncements. All because they don't understand the nature of the war they are in. Nor do they understand the rules. The leaders do. So does the "wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove" Child of God.

5:55 PM  
Blogger fooser77 said...

This thread may appear dead, however this subject is timeless. I'm surmizing that all here are ROE readers in addtion to MoMs. Has anyone here viewed the Money Masters series? It's certainly not perfect, however it definitely gets the discussion going in the right direction. Thoughts anyone?

12:31 PM  
Blogger fooser77 said...

This thread may appear dead, however this subject is timeless. I'm surmizing that all here are ROE readers in addition to MoMs. Has anyone here viewed the Money Masters series? It's certainly not perfect, however it definitely gets the discussion going in the right direction. Thoughts anyone?

12:34 PM  
Blogger fooser77 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

12:35 PM  
Blogger Salt said...

Rafe makes good points. The documentary Money Masters (google it) is excellent on this matter.

I'd add this to what Rafe posted - the Trading with the Enemy Act promulgated under Wilson and expanded under FDR made all U.S. Citizens enemies of the state.

Enemies of the State, residing within the US, may be licensed and regulated.

3:12 PM  
Blogger ~sas~ said...

Ah yes, the tired old refrain of "But the Constitution...!".

Mate, the Constitution doesn't mean diddly squat anymore. If you haven't noticed the reams and reams stacked in massive rows upon reams and reams and reams of administrative law (federal and state) then where have you been exactly. And if that weren't enough to revolutionize our supposedly constitutionally-governed legal system, there's always revolutionary jurisprudence. You know, where judges contort the meaning of the word "is" in order to make it say what they need it to say to assuage their ravening tendencies. This is where, if you look carefully, you'll find that in fact the Supreme Court has overruled most of the Constitution pertaining to State Sovereignty and money. Or well, alright, "overruled" might be a bit over-zealous, "re-interpreted" is even revisionist. Well whatever, you get the point.

Nice list though.

12:59 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home