"....nothing more than convenient sophistry."
Translation = I'm bothered by the evidence against my point of view.
"Such miscarriages are not new."
Translation = despite no legal background, I'm going to discount decisions made by the highest court in the land.
As I predicted, skewed decisions by the Supreme Court judges is what the response would be. Strange you won't present the flaw in the legal arguments made by these judicial giants.
The lack of understanding of "superseded" by these looney tunes is astounding, here exemplified by Chisolm v. Georgia (the word not to be mentioned) by the Eleventh Amendment.
Funny how the these kind of looney tunes swear to one Amendment but condemn others, all in the name of Liberty.
Patriots love Liberty, but NeoLibertarians love craziness even more.
Your point is moot. What is the legal definition of a dollar? It still stands as testament to the fraud being perpetrated. And legal tender (a euphemism for fiat) is not lawful money.
The SCOTUS has done so before and numerous times. Read Wickard v. Filburn. It is nothing more than convenient sophistry. There are others, too, while FDR was was president.
Such miscarriages are not new. But if one reads Chisolm v. Georgia one will discover that the high court doesn't necessarily have the final say.
"Money is not specifically "defined" in the Constitution"
Now all you need to do is to stop ignoring the Legal Tender Act, as well as the Supreme Court decisions that have upheld it.
The post to which this best fits was that from sandybeachdave - an alias of goldbug49ers? Probably.
"Hyno_hype" is a revisionist and will say anything that sounds like it might attract the ignorant to his/her/their point of view.
We were accused of having multiple screen names. Not so. Unlike "hypno_hype" we don't engage in making our posts look better by using other aliases to to improve our ratings. Hypno_hype has bad ratings because no one buys the BS spewed out under that screen name, except maybe others that dislike the freedoms provided in our Constitution, which people from that screen name are doing their level best to destroy..
Further, it appears that Yahoo censors are siding with hypno, as a derogatory reply was deleted by Yahoo. What's new. The biggest corporations in this country are attempting to destroy t he middle class by being partisan to anything leaning left.
Yours is the Marxist approved interpretation. Do you not understand the importance of the Bill of Rights more accurately the BIll of Oh No You Won'ts)? The first 10 amendments are not mere suggestions and yet we see that most of them have been compromised by ideology such as yours. Refer to both the 9th & 10th Amendments and get back to us with your twisted interpretation. It is you that has a very misguided idea of what a republican form of government is all about. Your teachers deserve to be drawn and quartered if they are at fault.
WARNING: this SLW PIG FARM remains the most OBSCENE MEGA BUBBLE in the stock market and it MUST PANIC SELL CRASH to prices BELOW 3.00 by the time 2015 ends!!! MEGA BEARISH!!!!
Tried to warn my POOR sweet amateur silver/gold LOSERS and BORN FAILURES, again:
Smarter market pros use every silver/gold DEADCAT BURP to increase in the money PUT positions for another massive $$$ SCORE!!! More than OBVIOUS to smarter market pros!!!
“...slowly industry is migrating back to the US. ...”
Our view on this is, what took them so long? If taxes and other burdens, such as regulations were such a problem, why has industry allowed our “representative democracy” to put in place such burdens on it? And why has the real issue, that of fiat money, which is the root of that problem as well, not been opposed? The elitists appear to have many facilitating their objectives.
Unions have been an issue of large businesses trying to cut labor costs, and it seems the strategy therefore has been to outsource labor. But it also seems that, in the past, labor was reacting to the loss of value of their compensation due to the loss in value of the dollar. Notice that there has not been much union activism lately (other than the greedy participants in the public sector) as the dollar has been surging against other currencies. If companies have outsourced to kill unions it is pretty obvious to us that union demands were not the issue. It was a falling dollar.
So we go back to our original contention that the bullies and lesser lights are the ones who rise to the top in most management structures and show little ability to put in place intelligent solutions that are not internationalist in nature. This country’s elitist class creates wars and implies that only those who participate in the fray are showing loyalty, while the elitists and all manner of those in management capacities do nothing but damage the country’s viability. Today many more companies ultimately depend on their income stream from government contracts, meaning they are captured in ways that makes them disloyal to the country’s founding principals, articulated by President Eisenhower who tagged them as part of the “military industrial complex”.
Connecting the dots certainly does, for us, paint a very sordid picture of all manner of those in control who exhibit a great deal of hypocrisy.
Money is not specifically "defined" in the Constitution; there was no need to because the Spanish milled dollar was the most circulated money available. It is said that Congress may borrow it; and it is said that Congress may coin it. The latter empowerment covers the ability to stamp bullion only. All together, a good argument could be made that "it" is specie money and only specie money that is being referenced. You really have nothing with which to counter that.
The Coinage Act of 1792, still in effect today, is where the dollar is defined—as only specie money—and that which circulates today bears no resemblance. There are prescribed penalties in that same Act that need to be carried out today.
The U.S. Constitution is considered to be the most farsighted, influential and impeccable document written in human history. Yet goldbug49ers and his aliases insult its writers by arguing that any program that does not have express constitutional permission for such a program is deemed unconstitutional.
What he is saying is that the framers of the constitution actually botched the job by not including the absolute wording that specifically prohibits the Federal government from doing anything other than what is permitted by the document.
Siding with who(m)? I'm being pigeonholed into your well organized categorized conspiracy theory?
Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution? You mean the prohibition of the States from issuing paper money, not the Federal government?
As you continue to deliberately mislead readers, perhaps you should hand yourself into Yahoo and admit to violating their TOS.
Why do you deliberately withhold the vital information pointing to the categorical determination that the Fed is constitutional? That being, SCOTUS decisions on the Fed. Let me guess, the SCOTUS judges are conspiring to make skewed legal arguments.
I'll keep this short and sweet...Google "PennyStock101' signup for their free newsletter and get their next trade alert. Come back and thank me tomorrow!
Obviously you never read Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution. You're just a blowhard siding with those who attempt to convince others they know what they are talking about, while being totally ignorant or deliberately misleading. We think that the case is the latter, that you are deliberately misleading by attempting to place words in the US Constitution that do not exist. That, by the way, is a violation of TOS that you are allowed to get away with by Yahoo censors.
If you have anything to say, either quote the US Constitution and attempt to interpret it to make Fed actions constitutional (fat chance) or disappear.