Posted by T. Mann on August 05, 1998 at 15:00:27:
In Reply to: Good cite, flawed interpretation posted by Not convinced on August 04, 1998 at 17:24:42:
“It looks to me like the overturning of the unconstitutionality of legal tender was more of a shift in the political winds than a diabolical plot to enslave the country…”
Where did Juilliard v Greenman overturn Knox.? I’d didn’t see anything about one overturning the other. If one overturned the other, thered be a notation to that effect. I didn’t see one. They both exist as valid case law.
Wow, a shift in the political winds. Are we talking about that misunderstanding in 1860 that ripped apart this country, killed more Americans than any other armed conflict, and accelerated the consolidation of power to D. C.? Political winds?!? I’m astounded! The first set of cases (1870) was rightly struck down, due to money being only gold and silver coin and, Congress’ inability to ex post facto impair contracts. Simple. Congress doesn’t have the power to do this in the 50 states. To my knowledge, it still doesn't. If I missed those amendments to the constitution, please cite them. The martial law (and martial rule) in force at that time can be seen when they cite necessity as they’re reason to over look the constitution. Martial rule by the way is still in force, look around you.
Since you didn’t bite on my US note question, you’d do well to notice that a note is a negotiable instrument where the “maker” promises to pay money (in 1870 gold or silver coin) at a specific time. Now, US notes in the 1800’s were all payable in gold or silver.
See: http://www.money.org/paper/co1ser3120b.html and http://www.money.org/paper/lt100ser6918.html
To wit: Will pay on demand to the bearer xxx dollar. Signed by the maker, Aug. 15, 1866. Now then, these pieces of paper represented money, specie, substance and were freely circulating. The point of the Knox case was: Can a person be forced to accepted these notes, since during and after the war their value was discounted (worth less) by some people, investors, banks etc.? Clearly, the Supreme(s) in Knox said No!!
Now watch the wording on an FRN post 1913 but pre-1933 (before gold was taken as a surety on the national debt by the banks). Notice gold and silver are both available at this time.
Again, the same wording appears so as to create a promise to pay i.e. a negotiable instrument. This paper is still redeemable for gold or lawful money, see reverse.
Now after 1933, US citizens lose the right to hold gold as a matter of “military necessity” right, (we are declared enemies of the government by at Trading with the Enemies Act of 1917, as amended. Look it up!
Now let’s move to the 50’s and 60’s. FRNs are in circulation, as well as silver certificates. Unfortunately, the ANA doesn’t have an example, but if memory serves, the US notes (with the red dot) then in existence said something like…This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private and is redeemable in lawful money. Lawful money!!! Remember, “lawful money”, silver, is still in circulation before 1964!! Moreover, this begs the question ‘if lawful money is that IKE dollar or four pre-1964 quarters in your pants, what the hell is the piece of paper!?! Why the distinction!?!
Now move to the post-Kennedy FRNs where silver is removed from circulation and you see the switch is complete.
This paper is not redeemable but still declared “legal” tender. Is this piece of paper a promissory note? Who’s the maker? The US, or the Federal Reserve? Can’t tell. The words “pay to the bearer” don’t appear all, tender does, but not “pay”. Tender means “offer”. No promise to pay is made what so ever. Is this a note? Not even close. Look up the distinction between “pay” and “discharge” in Black’s or Bouvier’s. An FRN is fiat money created out of thin air.
A US note circa 1860 and the FRN in your pocket are even close to being the same. So what’s the applicability of a case where words don’t mean what they mean today? Still think there is no difference between today and when the legal tender cases where heard a hundred years ago? Think again.
Not to be hard on you, but, this has little to the constitutional validity of the power of Congress to this or that. This has everything to do with power and control over your life and mine. You used the term “diabolical plot to enslave the country”, what do you call compelling people to exchange their labor (the short lifetime here on earth) for pieces of paper that are demonetized at the whim of private bankers? A government benefit? Oh and look at the 14th Amendment, section 4. You can’t even question the validity of the debt they create on your behalf. Nice, huh? Slavery? What’s the difference between slavery and voluntary servitude? Answer = civil rights!!
No, I’ll not be running for Congress any time soon. The truth and living in D. C. don’t mix.
Post a Followup