Talk:Legal Tender Cases/Archive 1

Archive 1

Odd that this article doesn't show up in a Google search.Ferrylodge 00:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It shows up now.Ferrylodge 00:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Rife with errors

This article contains a tremendous number of errors with respect to the definition of money, how money is created, and who prints money. I suggest that the editors do some research and hash out the issues here before posting. For example, there has been a back and forth on who prints money. The US Dept. of the Treasury (of which the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the U.S. Mint are subsets) handles the physical printing of money, but it is the Federal Reserve (which is independent of Treasury) that authorizes the printing. Wikiant 00:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to point out and correct anything that you believe is erroneous. However, your most recent edit did not correct any error. The fact is that paper money is physically printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.Ferrylodge 00:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the word, "printed." When talking about money creation, when one speaks of who "prints" money, one means "who has authority to order the printing of money." With respect to money creation, who puts the ink on the paper is irrelevant. As for the other errors, everytime I attempt to fix them, you alter the wording and reintroduce the errors. I'll make changes again. Please read them carefully -- these are not stylistic changes. The wording I am changing is erroneous. Wikiant 02:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit that I previously mentioned did not correct an error. It was not erroneous to say that paper money is printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Instead of deleting the "Bureau of Engraving and Printing" from this article, you could have instead clarfied the article so that it says what it says now: that the printing is done by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing under the authority of the Federal Reserve.

Unfortunately, your most recent edit has likewise deleted perfectly factual information. Instead of rephrasing or clarifying, you've simply deleted relevant material, just like you previously deleted the "Bureau of Engraving and Printing" from this article. For example, you deleted this:

"Generally speaking, the money supply is the quantity of money available within the economy to purchase goods, services, and securities. In the United States, the money supply is measured in several different ways, and includes paper money, coins, checkable deposits, and traveler's checks in the hands of the non-bank public."

You replaced it with this:

"The money supply is the value of paper money, coins, checkable deposits, and travellers' cheques in the hands of the non-bank public."

For you to say that the material you deleted is "erroneous" is itself erroneous. If you would be so kind as to visit the Wikipedia article on the money supply, you will find "money supply" described as "the quantity of money available within the economy to purchase goods, services, and securities." Yet, you have decided to delete that very factual statement from this article. Do you also believe it is erroneous to state that the money supply is measured in several different ways, even though I provided a link that proves the statement to be correct? Please do not say that material in this article is erroneous without explaining why you think it is erroenous, and please try to clarify material in the article rather than simply deleting it. Absent an explanation of why you think material is erroneous, I will attempt to reinsert it into the article.

Your assertion that the "money supply" only includes paper money, coins, checkable deposits, and travellers' cheques is very narrow, and does not include many other components of M0, M1, M2, and M3. Your phrase "in the hands of the non-bank public" is vague, and it's unclear whether it includes accounts at the central bank that can be exchanged for physical currency (this is a component of M0, M1, M2, and M3).

You deleted the phrase "issuing money to purchase U.S. Government securities on the open market" and replaced it with "purchasing U.S. Government securities on the open market." I see nothing erroneous about the phrase you deleted, and it seems much clearer than the phrase you replaced it with. Thank you.Ferrylodge 03:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Responses

The definition in the money supply article is also incorrect. In fact, it is tautological. The definition that I supplied earlier is standard across macroeconomics texts. The definition (as opposed to the description) of the money supply is, "M1 in the hands of the non-bank public." We probably don't want to say "M1" in this article, so in my earlier edit, I substituted the definition of M1 (again, standard across macroeconomics texts): "paper money plus coins plus checkable deposits plus travellers' cheques." Note that, M2 and above (after subtracting out M1) are not part of the money supply. WRT "issuing money to purchase...," I didn't understand what you meant by "issue." "Purhase" seemed a much more straightforward verb. Wikiant 12:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Since this is just an article about a set of nineteenth-century US Supreme Court cases, I don't think we need to explain here what the "money supply" means. Simply linking to the money supply article would be sufficient. I'd recommend that any error at the money supply article be addressed at that article instead of this one.

Regarding this sentence: "The Federal Reserve can increase the money supply by issuing money to purchase U.S. Government securities on the open market"....

I don't think this is inaccurate or unclear. If we were to write "purchasing" instead of "issuing money to purchase" then it would be very unclear to a typical reader how buying securities increases the money supply. The answer, of course, is that the Federal Reserve essentially buys these securities with money that the Federal Reserve basically creates out of thin air (rather than the Federal Reserve using tax revenue to conduct open market operations, or the Federal Reserve borrowing money to conduct open market operations). If you don't mind, I'd very much like to keep this sentence in the article as is, although I'm open to any suggestions for clarifying it further. Thanks again.Ferrylodge 14:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I've changed the word "issuing" to "creating." Perhaps this will be more understandable.Ferrylodge 14:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed re the money supply article -- I'll have a look there. I have no problem with the "out of thin air" business. However, it's only half the story. When the Fed sells securities, it removes money from the system. The way the paragraph reads now, it appears that the deficit is always monetized. That's not the case. Wikiant 15:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Immediately preceding your comment, I've restored the "P.S." that you apparently deleted by accident. Regarding Federal Reserve actions to decrease the money supply, I've added a sentence to the article about that.Ferrylodge 15:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Content

Discussions by a single-purpose editor with multiple IPs blocked for disruption and personal attacks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To whoever backed out my changes I attempted to make a change to this page showing the the "wording" of the US Constitution limits the power of "legal tender" to gold and silver and reserves that power for the states, and the the legal tender rulings cited are directly opposed to that "wording". The changes I made were then backed out. This is not a case of interpreting of the "intent" of the writers but of the actual "wording" of the US Constitution. The cases cited are plainly NOT following the wording of the US Constitution. The "wording" in question is part of the changes so that the "wording" can be plainly seen. I am not familiar with the rules of changing WIKI language and would like to know how to add the following content. Disenting fact on whether the federal government has any legal tender powers Text of Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 of the US Constitution Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.'' Text of 10th Amendment to the US Constitution' The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' Per the language of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution, a power not prohibited to the states is reserved to the states. This plainly means the the federal government has no power to make gold or silver a legal tender, since that power resides in the states. The 10 Amendment also states that any powers not listed in the US Constitution continue to reside in the people. Since there is no mention in the US Constitution of any form of legal tender power for the federal government, then no such power resides with any branch of the federal government. Additional dissenting fact on on whether the federal government has any legal tender powers. Separation of powers is considered a cornerstone in the interpretation of the US Constitution. Any infringement by one branch of government to a power given to another branch of government is considered unconstitutional. Per the 10th Amendment, the power of legal tender resides in limited form in the states. Any power claimed by the federal government which infringes on that limited power is a violation of the principle of separation of powers. The only power related to legal tender given to the federal government, is the exclusive power to "coin". This is to insure a common coinage throughout the United States. The federal government was not given the power to make these coins legal tender as that would allow for the unilateral debasement of the currency by the federal government. The federal government makes the coins but only the states have the power to make them legal tender. Any attempt to debase the currency could thus be stopped by the st The following quote is from the person thought most responsible for writing the US Constitution. It is unambiguous. "I now deny [the Federal Government's] power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798. ME 10:65 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.154.214.54 (talk) 02:38:36, August 18, 2007 (UTC) Generally speaking, Wikipedia is not for presenting our arguments or points of view. However, relevant and notable points of view of others can be described, with appropriate footnotes and links.Ferrylodge 03:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Please advise what is more relevant to legal cases that purport to interpret the "wording" of the US Constitution, then that "wording"? The material you have proposed goes far beyond quoting the Constitution. And please note that Article I, Section 10 is already linked in the article. Also, please sign your next comment by placing four tildes (~) at the end. Thanks.Ferrylodge 04:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC) The wording of the Constitution is not a point of view. It is also not an opinion. The WIKI listing on this item fail to make any mention of the 10th Amendment. A look at the language of that amendment when placed beside Article 1 shows that it complements the language giving limited tender powers to the states. Except for the legal tender language, all other portions of Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 are prohibitions on the states. Text of Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. Per Amendment 10 of the US Constitution we find that a power “specifically not prohibited” to the states is “reserved” for the states. Text of Amendment 10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Regarding separation of powers This principle is considered the bedrock on which the Constitution rests. No principle is more important. If you believe that is an opinion then you never took a civics course in your life. As for the quote by Thomas Jefferson, I find it surprising that you would include a comment by a Supreme Court Justice, that to my knowledge never sat on any legal Tender cases, yet consider a quote from the man thought most responsible for writing the Constitution and who was later elected president as not worthy of inclusion. Robert Bork believes that the actual wording of the US Constitution is more important then the intent of the framers. I agree with him. The problem I have is that the wording of the US Constitution and the intent of the framers in this instance are one and same. The federal government has no Constitutional legal tender powers. Please sign your next comment by placing four tildes (~) at the end. The Constitution reserves certain powers to the states and the people, if those powers (1) are not "prohibited by it to the States," and (2) are "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution." You have shown that the Constitution (1) did not prohibit states from making gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, but you have not shown that (2) the Constitution failed to delegate to the federal government power to make gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. We can include your quote from Thomas Jefferson in the article, but your other comments are not backed up by cited sources.Ferrylodge 15:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC) In response to the following <<but you have not shown that (2) the Constitution failed to delegate to the federal government power to make gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.>> Amendment 10 explicitly states that a power "not denied the states" is "reserved for the states". Unless the English language has changed drastically in the past 200 years the word "reserved" means that the states are the sole owner of the power of legal tender with respect to gold and silver. I believe that covers your objection. No mention is made in the Constitution of any sort of legal tender powers for the federal government, whether for gold or silver or for unbacked paper (fiat) money. As mention in my addition, the power "to coin" comes closest. The power to coin however does not come with the power of legal tender. These are two separate powers and are so treated in the following clause. Text of Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. The "notes" that are mentioned in the WIKI article can mean several different things. For instance the federal government currently issues 3 month and 6 month notes as part of funding the debt. After the Federal Reserve was founded it issued Federal Reserve "notes" that were backed by gold. None of the mentioned items are considered legal tender by anyone, yet they are "notes". As to why the authors limited legal tender to gold and silver, I would advise you to read up on the "Continental" and how many of the notable figures of the time lost their savings due to an unbacked paper currency(fiat) being inflated to worthlessness. As an aside I would also like to point out that the "Necessary-and-proper clause" does not apply to legal tenders for the federal government. Prior to the legal tender cases the federal government was able to go about its business for almost a century without this power. I can safely say that if a power isn't needed in almost 100 years then it is neither needful or necessary. If we are to discuss unbacked paper money (fiat) then the federal government was able to go about its business until the 1930's when gold backing was remover from the dollar or the 1960's when silver backing was removed. In these two case the federal government was able to handle its business for 140 and 170 some years without benefit of this power. Again that power hardly seems "Necessary" The Legal Tender cases of the 1860's were needed to give a fig leaf of legality to the "greenback" paper currency used to fund the Civil War (or War of Northern Aggression if you are from the south). To the credit of the federal government of the time these notes were eventually redeemed in gold and retired. The WIKI post itself currently points out how 2 new members of the Supreme Court were added to insure passage of these cases, when the sitting members of the time looked like they were going to reject passage. As for signing my posting I would prefer to rain anonymous. ````Anonymous Signing your post at the end by inserting four tildes (~) preserves your anonymity. It merely will put your number at the end: 4.156.27.23. Please do so. Otherwise people cannot tell who wrote it, or when the comment ends. This is a Wikipedia requirement: "On talk pages, please sign your comment by typing four tildes (Ferrylodge 17:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC))." You say, "Amendment 10 explicitly states that a power 'not denied the states' is 'reserved for the states'." That is incorrect. The Tenth Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If a power is not prohibited to the states, but is delegated to the federal government, then it is not reserved under the 10th Amendment.Ferrylodge 17:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC) <<You say, "Amendment 10 explicitly states that a power 'not denied the states' is 'reserved for the states'." That is incorrect. The Tenth Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.">> My statement is correct. There are three sets of powers in question. One set of powers is delegated to the federal government. The second set are powers not denied to the states. The set of powers not denied to the states obviously belong (again refer to the word "reserved") to the states. Also refer to the word "respectively" highlighted. The third set of powers were obviously not authorized to any branch of government and continue to reside in the people. <<If a power is not prohibited to the states, but is delegated to the federal government, then it is not reserved under the 10th Amendment.>> I am unclear on why you are using this argument. There is no language delegating legal tender powers to the federal government in the US Constitution and the argument does not apply. If you believe there is such language, please cite the clause. This is an issue. ```` The present article states: "the power to emit paper money arises from the Necessary-and-proper clause in combination with the power to borrow money." Additionally, you are reading the 10th Amendment as if it said "or" instead of "nor." There's a big difference. Please sign your comments by using four tildes (~).Ferrylodge 19:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC) <<The present article states: "the power to emit paper money arises from the Necessary-and-proper clause in combination with the power to borrow money.">> The present article is not a part of the US Constitution. Again if you believe that the US Constitution gives legal tender powers to the federal government please show the text of any such language and reference the clause. As pointed out several posts ago, the Necessary-and-proper clause is not germane to this issue. The federal government was able to handle its responsibilities without claiming legal tender power for almost a century up to the Civil War. If a power is not needed for that length of time it is neither "necessary" nor is it then "proper" to then claim it. <<Additionally, you are reading the 10th Amendment as if it said "or" instead of "nor." There's a big difference.>> The nor is in fact where it should be. It implies more then one set of powers. The 10th Amendment states that powers not delegated to the federal government NOR prohibited by it to the states are reserved one set of powers is reserved for the states and another is reserved and continues to reside in the people. Additionally, there are 3 types of powers referenced by the US Constitution with regard to the states. Prohibited Not Prohibited Allowed with the Consent of Congress "Not prohibited" powers are reserved to the states per the 10th Amendment "Allowed" powers are shared with the federal government, with the states the lesser partner. the 10th Amendment obviously is meant to reserve SOME power to the states. Please review the following text of the US Constitution and let me know which power fits better then the legal tender power with respect to gold and silver. Section 10 No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. Text of Amendment 10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Again: If you do not believe that the legal tender power with respect to gold and silver is reserved to the states per this Amendment, please advise what other power is reserved. 4.156.252.168 21:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC) I have inserted your Jefferson quote into the article. Nathaniel Gorham said in the constitutional convention that, "The power [to emit paper money], as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing." Article I, Section 8 specifically gives Congress power to borrow, and that reasonably includes issuing notes such as IOUs, and reasonably includes printing on the IOUs that they must be accepted in payment.Ferrylodge 22:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC) I thank you for inserting the Jefferson quote. 4.156.111.101 23:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC) <<Nathaniel Gorham said in the constitutional convention that, "The power [to emit paper money], as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing.">> It is true that in order to borrow (legal tender) money, some "Authority" must designate what is that (legal tender) money. Per the Constitution that Authority is the states, who have the exclusive (but limited) power to designate what is money. That power is limited to gold and silver. <<Article I, Section 8 specifically gives Congress power to borrow, and that reasonably includes issuing notes such as IOUs,>> Notes continue to be issued by the federal government. They are not not now and have never been considered legal tender by ANYONE. No one if FORCED to lend to the federal government. If you don't believe me, try going to a supermarket to purchase milk with a 6 month treasury note. I am quite sure that they will refuse to accept it as a "legal tender" payment. <<and reasonably includes printing on the IOUs that they must be accepted in payment.>> 100% DISAGREE! the above comment is opinion and is in fact MOST unreasonable. There is no language is the US Constitution forcing anuone to LEND money to the federal government. I would like to finish one issue before starting another. A reading of the 10th Amendment indicates that SOME powers MUST be reserved for the states, otherwise that amendment would not be written as it is. The language of the US Constitution indicates that there are 3 classes of powers mentioned in the US Constitution with regard to the states. The language associated with those powers can be classed as 1)Prohibited, 2)Not Prohibited and 3)Allowed with the Consent of Congress. The text of the 10th Amendment indicated that "Not Prohibited" powers do exist. Please do not make this another issue. Text of Amendment 10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. It is obvious that "Prohibited" powers cannot be reserved to the states as they are not allowed to exercise them. Also it can safely be said that powers exercised with the Consent of Congress are not reserved to the states. If they were then the states would not need Congressional Authorization to use them. The only remaining class of powers is the one given in language that is considered "Not Prohibited". I believe that the English language considers the following as "Not Prohibited" language. <<make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts>> If you disagree please advise why, and which state powers mentioned in the US Constitution can be considered "Not Prohibited". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Forgot to sign - don't know how it will work 4.156.111.101 23:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 4.156.111.101 (talk) 23:01:42, August 19, 2007 (UTC) Reverting Recent Edit I am going to revert this edit. First of all, there is no consensus for this edit. See WP:Consensus. Second, the edit contains original research without cited sources. See WP:Original Research. Please keep in mind that the reserved powers mentioned in the Tenth Amendment are not the only powers that state governments possess. The states additionally have what are called concurrent powers, which are held by both the states and the federal government (Congress may be able in some instances to preempt those concurrent state powers). So, just because the Constitution mentions that states may be able to make legal tender, that does not mean it's a reserved power.Ferrylodge 21:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC) No consensus was reached because you failed to respond to a question. When a person refuses to respond, it can either be considered agreement or that there is a lack of a counterargument. I waited a week before making changes. You did not respond in that time frame. You either agreed or are are unable to muster a counterargument. Again: The 10the Amendment states that there are powers "reserved" to the states that are written in language considered "Not Prohibited" and that the power of legal tender with respect to gold and silver coin is given to the states in such language is FACT. That is neither opinion nor original research. The words plainly stated in the US Constitution are neither original research nor are they opinion. The meaning of the English language is also not original research nor is it opinion. Please advise what you believe is opinion or original research. If you cannot then stop undoing the changes.4.156.27.14 00:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Further: Concurent powers that can be exercised by both the federal government and the states is not at issue. The issue is power RESERVED for the EXCLUSIVE use of the states per language in the 10th Amendment.4.156.27.14 00:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Please accept my apologies for not responding sooner. I was kind of hoping that you might drop the matter. You have argued that the power to make legal tender is a reserved power rather than a concurrent power. That's incorrect. Even if Article I, Section 10 implies that states can make "gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts", that would not determine whether such state power is reserved or concurrent. The Tenth Amendment says that a power is reserved if it satisfies two requirements: (1) it is not forbidden to the states; and (2) it is not delegated --- expressly or impliedly --- to the federal government. The power to make legal tender clearly satisfies (1), but does not satisfy (2). The federal government's power to make legal tender follows impliedly from the expressly delegated power to borrow, together with the Necessary and Proper Clause. That does not mean the Constitution forbids the states from also making legal tender.Ferrylodge 00:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC) The following text appears on the WIKI entry for the US Constitution. Tenth Amendment: provides that powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the United States and does not prohibit the states from exercising, are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That language is not the language of the 10th Amendment and is a "statement". Part of that "statement' is that there are powers reserved to the states. I see no reason why a similar "statement" cannot be included here as well. Please advise if and why you disagree. The text in the US Constitution giving the states limited power of legal tender is the only legal tender language in the US Constitution. That has major relevance to the legal tender cases since that language is worded in a way that would make the 10th Amendment applicable. If the 10th Amendment is applicable then that power is "reserved" and the exclusive property of the states and STRONGLY indicates that the legal tender cases were never reconciled to the language of the Constitution.4.156.27.14 00:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Article One, Section 10 implies that states may, without the consent of Congress, engage in War if invaded. But that doesn't mean that the federal government may not engage in war if invaded. The same applies to making legal tender. It's a concurrent power. The only pertinent question is whether the delegated powers authorize Congress to make legal tender. It makes no difference if it's an express delegated power or an implied delegated power. The reason why the framers made it an implied power instead of an express power is because they wanted to make sure that Congress would only make legal tender when "necessary and proper." They said so during the constitutional convention, which is quoted in the present Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge 01:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Again the language of the 10th Amendment states that there are powers reserved to the states that are given to the states in language that is considered "Not prohibited". That makes this Amendment applicable to the legal tender language power of the states as that power is given in "Not Prohibited" language. The language in Article I, Section 10 and the 10th Amendment complement each other. The Constitution cannot be interpreted in chunks. As the PREMIER legal document it MUST be taken as a whole when it is to be interpreted. This is the standard for ALL legal documents. As an example if you have a mortgage you need to read the ALL of it a well as the "fine print" sections to know ALL the terms and conditions. In this case consider the 10th Amendment as the "fine print" for the legal tender power of the states. With regard to the following <<and (2) it is not delegated --- expressly or impliedly --- to the federal government.>> I would have no objections if the power is expressly given to the federal government. However the opinion that an implied power of one branch of government trumps a power expressly given and "reserved" for another branch is without merit. By definition: If a power is "reserved", then it can't be "shared". Again: The power to borrow legal tender money implies only that SOME Agency has the power to designate what that legal tender money is. Per the US Constitution that Agency is the states and ONLY the states. That is what "reserved" means. This objection is therefore also without merit.4.156.27.14 01:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Article I, Section 10 does not say that the legal tender power is "reserved" to the states, any more than it says the power to repel an invasion is "reserved" to the states. What distinction does Article I, Section 10 make between the legal tender power and the power to repel invasions?Ferrylodge 01:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Regarding the following. <Article One, Section 10 implies that states may, without the consent of Congress, engage in War if invaded. But that doesn't mean that the federal government may not engage in war if invaded. The same applies to making legal tender. It's a concurrent power.> The power allowing the states to engage in war is in a clause that starts with the words "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress". It is clear from this language that this power is not reserved to the states and the 10th Amendment is not applicable. Further the power to declare war is given to the federal government in explicit language elsewhere in the Constitution. Nowhere is there explicit language given the federal government any sort of legal tender powers. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. <The only pertinent question is whether the delegated powers authorize Congress to make legal tender. It makes no difference if it's an express delegated power or an implied delegated power.> A power "reserved" to one branch of government by definition cannot be shared. Implied powers cannot take away "reserved" powers. If they could then Congress could run the armed forces as part of declaring war, the president can act as judge, jury and executioner as part of implement the the law, and the Justice Department can initiate and pass legislation as part of clearing up discrepancies in the laws. All of the above examples are obviously unconstitutional. <The reason why the framers made it an implied power instead of an express power is because they wanted to make sure that Congress would only make legal tender when "necessary and proper."> Laws are interpreted by their language and not by opinion as to the intent of the writers. The above is opinion. Further: Thomas Jefferson was the primary author of the US Constitution and one of those founders you cite. His opinions are not those that you have stated belong to the founders as shown by the comment I was able to get included last week. Please show where ANY of the founders explicitly stated that the federal government had any legal tender powers. Considering many of them got burned holding Continentals I doubt that ANY of them shared the above opinion. I again urge you to look up what a Continental is. There is good article here at WIKI. 4.156.27.14 01:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Regarding the following <Article I, Section 10 does not say that the legal tender power is "reserved" to the states, any more than it says the power to repel an invasion is "reserved" to the states. What distinction does Article I, Section 10 make between the legal tender power and the power to repel invasions.> Again: Powers given under "Not Prohibited" language fall under the 10th Amendment. Laws must be interpreted as a whole and not in chunks. The 10th Amendment states that powers given in "Not Prohibited" language are "reserved". By definition "reserved" powers are not shared. Below I have provided the test of all of Section 10. The state power of legal tender is in a clause which makes no mentions of Congress and is in fact all prohibitions with this single exemption. The 2 other clauses clearly make the states an agent of Congress. Congress has the power and the states implement it as Congress decrees. The power to repel invasions is subsidiary to the Congressional power to declare war. That is made plain in the Constitution and is not an "implied" power. Since the language of states legal tender power falls under the language of the 10th Amendment and the limited power to wage war does not, the comparison is not applicable. Congress has the power to declare war. The states are allowed the power of self defense if attacked or if about to be attacked. Both powers are listed and neither is implied. Section 10 No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.27.14 (talk) 02:06, August 27, 2007 (UTC) Article I, Section 10 suggests that a state can repel an invasion without the consent of Congress. It also suggests that a state can make legal tender without the consent of Congress. Why do you think the former is a concurrent power but the latter is a reserved power? If your only reason is that Congress has an express war-making power, whereas it does not have an express legal tender power, then that is not a good reason. Implied powers are just as legitimate as express powers. Please look at the history of the Tenth Amendment in Congress. Congress decisively rejected putting language in the Tenth Amendment referring to "the powers not expressly delegated by this Constitution". That decision meant the federal government would have more power than it otherwise would have, whether we like it or not.Ferrylodge 02:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC) <Article I, Section 10 suggests that a state can repel an invasion without the consent of Congress. It also suggests that a state can make legal tender without the consent of Congress. Why do you think the former is a concurrent power but the latter is a reserved power?> The 10th Amendment concerns power "reserved" to the states or to the people. By definition, no power listed as belonging to any branch of the federal government can fall under this Amendment. The states limited power to wage defensive war is clearly related to the listed power of Congress to wage war and this power is therefore shared. By definition a shared power cannot be "reserved" to the states and therefore a shared power does not fall under the 10th Amendment. However, there is no federal power listed that is similar to the power of the states to make gold and silver a legal tender. Because of the way the language giving the states limited legal tender powers is worded and because no mention is made of federal legal tender powers, the 10th Amendment does apply to this power. <If your only reason is that Congress has an express war-making power, whereas it does not have an express legal tender power, then that is not a good reason. Implied powers are just as legitimate as express powers.> Implied power do not supersede 'reserved' powers. NOTHING can supersede a reserved power, because a 'reserved' power is 'reserved'. <Please look at the history of the Tenth Amendment in Congress. Congress decisively rejected putting language in the Tenth Amendment referring to "the powers not expressly delegated by this Constitution". That decision meant the federal government would have more power than it otherwise would have, whether we like it or not.> The language of the 10th Amendment was written before Congress came into existence and the wishes of Congress has no bearing on this issue. Without an Amendment to the Constitution the language of the 10th Amendment is the language agreed upon by the founders. Again the 10th amendment concerns itself with powers reserved to the states and to the people. Because of the way it is worded and because no legal tender powers are listed for the federal government, the 10th Amendment makes the limited power of the states to make gold and silver coin a tender a 'reserved' power. A power 'reserved' by the Constitution cannot be taken away by an implied power. By definition, an implied power is a lesser power needed to exercise Constitutional powers. No implied power that is greater then a Constitutional power can exist. By definition any such greater implied power is Unconstitutional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.27.14 (talk) 03:08, August 27, 2007 (UTC) No, the language of the 10th Amendment was written after Congress came into existence. The whole Bill of Rights was approved by the House and Senate before it went to the states for ratification. Do you agree that a state can repel an invasion without the consent of Congress? If so, then a state's power to repel invasions is legally no different from a state's power to make legal tender. Neither requires congressional consent. I do not understand why you think one is a concurrent power while the other is a reserved power. Can you cite any book or article that says one is a reserved power while the other is a concurrent power? Wikipedia requires reliable sources.Ferrylodge 03:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC) With respect as to whether the legal tender power is shared with the federal government, the Constitution is the law of the land and NOTHING trumps the language of the Constitution. The 10th Amendment states that power "not prohibited" to the states are "reserved" to the states. The legal tender power is written in language that is considered "not prohibited". Therefore the limited legal tender power allowed per the US Constitution is reserved for the states and exclusively theirs. Unwritten implied powers cannot change the written word of the Constitution. If they could then EVERY power and right listed in the Constitution is in danger. With respect to references this may of some help, but I am not being allowed to post the link I googled the following legal tender "reserved power" and got some text from The Constitution of the Unites States: A Critical Discussion of its Genesis, Development and by John Randolph Tucker and Henry St. George Tucker The following is from page 510 The court argued that the power existed in Congress because it was not prohibited, and was prohibited to the States. But if this be so, what becomes of the language of the tenth amendment: " the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved," etc.? If prohibited to the States, the States do not hold it as a reserved power. But can it be said that though prohibited to the States, if not prohibited to the United States, it is delegated to them. Can there be an implication of grant of power to the United States because the same power is prohibited to the States ? It is further objectionable because the court holds that the Congress has power to provide a currency, and that this power involves the implication of a power to make their notes a legal tender. This assumption is faulty in both branches. On the same page 244. Congress has no power to provide a currency, except, as we shall see, in metallic coin, and the power to emit bills was never intended to give the power to make them legal tender. But let us look more particularly to the objections to this extraordinary power. 1st. The whole debate in the convention shows that the express power to emit was denied, lest it should be anything- else than a form of borrowing money; and further, with great emphasis, it was denied that the power was implied to make these bills a legal tender Additional points can probably be found on surrounding pages.4.156.27.14 06:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC) One part of the Constitution that you've not discussed is Article I, Section 8 --- which expressly gives Congress power to "regulate the value" of both U.S. and foreign coins. Doesn't that obviously imply the power to make coins a legal tender? If so, then you must disagree with Jefferson's statement that Congress couldn't make coins a legal tender. Do you agree or disagree with Jefferson about that? I've tried to clarify the article. Please see if you find it more persuasive and/or accurate now. I've quoted dissenting Justice Field, who was on your side about the constitutionality of paper money. Nevertheless, Field believed that Congress could make coins a legal tender.Ferrylodge 06:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Why do you keep bringing up implied powers? Those powers by definition are lesser power used to exercise Constitutional powers and are not powerful enough to take powers form one branch of government and give it to another. The power to "regulate the value" of coins has no bearing on the legal tender cases. If you have the power to coin then obviously you need the power to determine the size, weight and purity of those coins. However you do NOT need the power to FORCE people to accept those coins as a part of the power to coin. The power to coin is not the same as the power of legal tender. The states are given limited tender powers but are denied the power to coin. The situation of the states clearly shows that one power does not imply the other. Further the Constitution treats them as separate powers and awards them to different branches. Again NO implied power can take a Constitutional power from one branch and give it to another. Any such power is by definition more powerful then the Constitution. Therefore any claim to such powers is by definition Unconstitutional. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. The principle of separation of powers states that any given power belongs to ONE and ONLY one branch of government. Why do you find this difficult to understand? If the federal government and the states both claim legal tender powers then there would be "turf" wars as to which branch has the most powerful version and one of them would eventually be disenfranchised. Due to faulty interpretation of the Constitution, the states are currently in a position where they have lost the use of a power specifically reserved for them. Are you comfortable with such disrespect of the Constitution and the principles embodied in it? Jefferson states that the federal government has NO legal tender powers. I agree with that statement 100%. I do not find the article more persuasive or more enlightening on the issue at hand. In my opinion, Field is not a dissident. He opines that the Federal government also has limited tender powers with respect to gold and silver coins. That opinion is in complete disagreement with the language of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. I noticed that among in addition to the changes listed you changed Jefferson's comment to an opinion, while leaving all other commentary as fact. That can hardly be considered an evenhanded action. Again the issue is the language in the US Constitution. Opinion does not take precedence over the language of the Constitution. Not even the opinion of Jefferson or that of Robert Bork and most certainly not that of Fields. What I want is the posting of the relevant language in the US Constitution. That language includes the language 'not prohibiting' the states from exercising limited legal tender powers, and the language of the 10th Amendment showing that powers 'not prohibited' to the states are reserved to the states. There is nothing more relevant to the legal tender cases.4.156.252.165 10:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Article I, Section 8 says that Congress may regulate the value of foreign coins. That obviously does not refer to regulating their size, weight and purity. It means deciding how much they can buy. If Congress decides that a Canadian dollar is worth a thousand pounds of gold, or a million bushels of corn, then the federal government arguably may enforce that decision. The point here is not that you are 100% wrong. It is that the Constitution is not 100% clear on all points, and those points are worked out by experience. The Constitution does not prohibit states from repelling invasions, and the consent of Congress is never required for states to repel invasions. Still, repelling invasions is a concurrent power rather than a reserved power. The same is true of making legal tender. The implied federal power does not take power from the states, but rather allows both the states and the federal government to make legal tender, just like both the states and the federal government can repel invasions. You say that implied powers "are not powerful enough to take powers from one branch of government and give it to another." That is incorrect. Implied powers often take power from states and give that power to the federal government. But in this case, you deny that an implied power can allow the federal government to merely share a power. That does not make sense to me. I have no desire to suppress relevant language of the Constitution. Please state in full the language of the Constitution that you think this article should quote.Ferrylodge 14:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC) The only way to regulate the the value of foreign coin, is to set up exchange rates between those coins and coins produced demestically. Many nations today set fixed exchange rates between the national currency and foreign currencies. To even hint that setting up and an exchange rate would make a foreign currency legal tender is ludicrous. <The point here is not that you are 100% wrong. It is that the Constitution is not 100% clear on all points, and those points are worked out by experience.> This is not a case where the language in the Constitution is unclear. The fact that the states are given the power of legal tender in language that is considered 'not prohibited', is 100% certain. That fact that the 10th Amendment declares that powers 'not prohibited' to the states is reserved to thee states is also 100% certain. That a 'reserved' power by definition cannot be a shared power is also 100% certain. Those 3 items indicate that the Legal Tender Cases have not been reconciled to the language of the Constitution. <The Constitution does not prohibit states from repelling invasions, and the consent of Congress is never required for states to repel invasions. Still, repelling invasions is a concurrent power rather than a reserved power.> The language of the Constitution explicitly allows forms of this power to be exercise by both the federal government and the states. <The same is true of making legal tender.> Not true. The Constitution explicitly allows the exercise of legal tender power only to the states. <<The implied federal power does not take power from the states, but rather allows both the states and the federal government to make legal tender, just like both the states and the federal government can repel invasions.>> Not true. Per the 10th Amendment legal tender is 'reserved' to the states. <You say that implied powers "are not powerful enough to take powers from one branch of government and give it to another." That is incorrect.> No! That is 100% correct. Implicit powers are used to exercise powers given to the various branches in the Constitution. An implicit power therefore cannot be of equal or greater power then that of a power explicitly granted in the Constitution. It is a 'lesser' power. <Implied powers often take power from states and give that power to the federal government. But in this case, you deny that an implied power can allow the federal government to merely share a power. That does not make sense to me.> I deny that a power explicitly 'reserved' to one branch of government can be shared. Please advise which state powers are given to the states in language in the Constitution indicating that they are for the exclusive use of the states and why you believe that an attempt to infringe on any such powers is Constitutional. From Article 1 Section 10 No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts. Amendment 10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Alternately you can add the whole paragraph from Article 1 Section 10. This has the advantage of showing that the powers to coin and that of legal tender are treated as separate powers in the Constitution. The ownership of one of these powers in no way implies any sort of ownership (shared or otherwise) of the other. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.111.225 (talk) 18:18, August 27, 2007 (UTC) I've edited the present article so that it now explicitly mentions and links to the Wikipedia article about the Tenth Amendment. The present article also explicitly mentions and links to the Wikipedia article about Article I, Section 8 (including the Necessary and Proper Clause plus the power to regulate the value of coins plus the power to borrow). The present article also explicitly mentions and links to the Wikipedia article about Article I, Section 10 (including the states' power to make coins a legal tender plus the power of states to repel invasions). I do not think it would be practical for the present article to recite the full text of each of those relevant provisions. However, a reader can easily click to read the full text. Will that be sufficient?Ferrylodge 18:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC) <> The 10th Amendment is only 2 lines, while the legal tender power with respect to the states is only 1 line. If Robert Bork deserves a paragraph then the Constitution deserves at least 100 times as much. Since so much time has been wasted on implied powers I would also like the following text included with respect to the 'Needful and Proper' clause and so called implied powers. It clearly states that implied powers are Laws passed by Congress. The Congress shall have Power to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Unless these Laws are in the form of Amendments to the Constitution, Laws passed by Congress do not have the power to alter the wording of the US Constitution and therefore MUST conform to the wording of the US Constitution. In light of the fact that the US Constitution 'reserves' legal tender power to the states through the 10th Amendment no claim to federal legal tender power can be Constitutional without an Amendment to the Constitution. No such Amendment has been passed. Also: The text stating that the legal tender cases have been reconciled to the language of the Constitution is opinion and needs to be replaced. As shown a solid argument exists that those cases have not been reconciled. Please review my changes of a few days ago as a starting point. I believe you will find them useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.27.123 (talk) 19:51, August 27, 2007 (UTC) Statements must be backed up by sources, and we cannot give undue weight to sources that argue against the way things have been for the past 150 years. We've included Thomas Jefferson's opinion, as well as James Madison's, and that should be sufficient to represent your point of view. You may believe that the Constitution is unambiguous that paper money is forbidden, but that just isn't so. All of the constitutional provisions that you rely on are now mentioned and linked in the article, but you want them to be actually quoted verbatim in their entirety. Unfortunately, if we quoted all the relevant constitutional provisions in their entirety, then the article would become unwieldy, because there are so many constitutional provisions involved. This article explicitly mentions and links to the Wikipedia article about the Tenth Amendment, and the Wikipedia article about Article I, Section 8 (including the Necessary and Proper Clause plus the power to regulate the value of coins plus the power to borrow). This article also explicitly mentions and links to the Wikipedia article about Article I, Section 10 (including the states' power to make coins a legal tender plus the power of states to repel invasions). I just don't see how to do more to accommodate your concerns here.Ferrylodge 20:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC) The problem with what this anonymous editor is stating, and the reason his additions keep getting reverted and deleted, is because he has provided no source for his assertions. Simply quoting language from the Constitution and setting forth your own interpretation thereof isn't going to suffice here. You need to quote some type of legal authority, preferably Federal case law, where possible. The Supreme Court of the United States is the final arbiter of what the Constitution requires, permits, and prohibits, not some faceless Wikipedia editor. Now, if you want to quote some other authority figure, be it one of the founding fathers or a jurist or law professor, that's fine too, just make sure that you provide the source and attribution for the quote, and make sure you explain that it is just one person's opinion, not the actual state of the law. --Eastlaw 21:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC) As editor Eastlaw and others have explained, for purposes of Wikipedia, you have to cite to reliable, published third party sources, and the statements in those sources must stand for the proposition you wish to insert in Wikipedia. The Tenth Amendment does not state that it is unconstitutional for the Federal government to make unbacked fiat currency legal tender. What you would first look for is a published Federal court case where a litigant actually argued that, under the Tenth Amendment, it is unconstitutional for the Federal government to make unbacked fiat currency legal tender, and the court actually ruled that argument to be valid. Good luck on that score. In the absence of any such court ruling, you might look for something like a law professor's published opinion that, under the Tenth Amendment, it is unconstitutional for the Federal government to make unbacked fiat currency legal tender. If you ever found such a published statement, you would have to make it clear that the statement is that professor's opinion. Merely quoting the text of the Tenth Amendment and then making your own argument -- however logical that argument might seem to be, or however logical you believe it to be -- constitutes an attempt at synthesis -- which constitutes prohibited Original Research for purposes of Wikipedia -- and it's Unverified. That's a big no-no (actually, it's two separate no-no's.) Yours, Famspear 22:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC) If you wish references to legal ender cases (including Supreme Court cases) where at a minimum the federal government was denied legal tender powers with respect to fiat currency, then you only need to look at each and every single legal tender case prior to the 1860's. A period of 80 some odd years. Since the Legal Tender Cases overruled prior law, at a minimum prior law stated that at best the federal government had powers equal to those of the states. Since the 10th Amendment is front and center in every case attempting to limit the powers of the federal government I would expect that the 10th Amendment would be mentioned in these cases. It was certainly mentioned in the reference I provided yesterday. Regarding the changes In the interest of fairness. A mention that there is no explicit prohibition to the exercise of legal tender powers, needs to be matched with one that that there is also no explicit grant of such powers. My opinion as to how it is worded in below. Article i, section 10 of the Constitution explicitly forbids the states from making anything but coins "tender in payment," whereas there is no corresponding explicit prohibition against the federal government. There is however also no explicit language empowering the federal government with any sort of legal tender power. Current legal opinion is that legal tender powers are allowed and exercisable per the Necessary and proper clause. This text needs to be changed The Tenth Amendment describes powers that only the states can exercise, but the states also possess "concurrent powers" that may be exercised by either the states or the federal government, such as the power to repel invasions and arguably the power to treat coins as legal tender. The 10th amendment does not 'describe' any powers. It simply states that powers 'not prohibited' to the states are 'reserved' to the states, and that powers not mentioned in the Constitution continues to reside in the people. The following appears on the WIKI entry for the US Constitution and is far superior to the language used here. Since this language is already in one entry I cannot see any objections to placing the same language in this entry as well. Tenth Amendment: provides that powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the United States and does not prohibit the states from exercising, are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." I do not believe that the he section on regulating coins is relevant at all and should therefore be be deleted. The ability to set exchange rates in no way implies that foreign currency can be made legal tender by the federal government. If it did then the exercise of similar powers by foreign governments would allow you to use dollars as legal tender in those nations which 'fix' their currency to the dollar. Such an action is not possible prior to converting dollars to the foreign currency. The fact that many vendors will gladly takes dollars does not change the fact that these dollars are not legal tender in those nations. I again object to the word 'opined' used with the statement by Thomas Jefferson. In the interest of fairness, either change this to make it similar to comments by others, or make sure all comment are referred to as 'opined'. If you wish additional quotes here are a few from the papers of James Madison (pages 1133 and 1134), where it looks like the quote from Gorham originates. In fact it shows that Gorham's views are somewhat distorted in this WIKI since he was "for" striking out language allowing the federal government "to emit bills on the credit of the United States". The statements of Ellsworth or that of Reed are certainly as relevant as that of Gorham. I favor the words of Reed myself. Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved to strike out, " and emit bills on the credit of the United States." If the United States had credit, such bills would be unnecessary; if they had not, unjust and useless. Mr. GORHAM was for striking out without inserting any prohibition. If the words stand, they may suggest and lead to the measure. Later Mr. GORHAM. The power, as far as it will be necessary, or safe, is involved in that of borrowing. Mr. ELLSWORTH thought this a favorable moment, to shut and bar the door against paper-money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made were now fresh in the public mind, and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By withholding the power from the new Government, more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else. Paper- money can in no case be necessary. Give the Government credit, and other resources will ofier. The power may do harm, never good. Mr. RANDOLPH, notwithstanding his antipathy to paper-money, could not agree to strike out the words, as he could not foresee all the occasions that might arise. Mr. READ thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.252.156 (talk) 01:37, August 28, 2007 (UTC) The article already says that there is no express power authorizing the federal government to make paper money as legal tender: "the power to emit paper money (e.g. bank notes) has been derived from the Necessary-and-proper clause in combination with the power to borrow money."Ferrylodge 02:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC) I don't think the following will do any good at this point but I feel that the point must be made. Basic methodology in interpreting law dictates that any changes (in this case Amendments) must be reviewed to see where and how they impact the original body of the law. The language from the Papers of James Madison clearly show that that early drafts of the Constitution had language allowing the federal government to emit legal tender notes. This language was deleted on a vote of 9 to 2 but sufficient votes could not be mustered to include a prohibition in the Body of the Constitution. Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved to strike out, " and emit bills on the credit of the United States." If the United States had credit, such bills would be unnecessary; if they had not, unjust and useless. The text of the discussion clearly shows that the issue at hand was the ability to issue legal tender notes. Mr. ELLSWORTH thought this a favorable moment, to shut and bar the door against paper-money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made were now fresh in the public mind, and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By withholding the power from the new Government, more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else. Paper- money can in no case be necessary. Give the Government credit, and other resources will ofier. The power may do harm, never good. Later On the motion for striking out,— New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia,* North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye—9 ; New Jersey, Maryland, no—2. The BODY of the Constitution left the situation uncertain until the passage of the 10th Amendment. That Amendment clearly states that powers not given to the Federal government or reserved to the states continue to reside in the people. The power of legal tender with respect to gold and silver coin is worded in language 'not prohibiting' that power to the states. Such language makes any such state power, upon ratification of the 10th Amendment, a 'reserved' power and not a shared power. Since no language exists in the body of the Constitution giving any additional sort of legal tender power to the federal government, any such additional power from that point forward resides in the people. To indicate the level of revulsion for paper money at the time the Constitution was written I ask that the following comment by Mr. George Read be included. Mr. READ thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelation. While not what I would like it to be, I believe that this WIKI topic is now in substantially better shape then it was a few weeks ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.252.17 (talk) 04:18, August 28, 2007 (UTC) Misleading Original Intent section on Story The Original Intent section leaves the impression that Story believed paper money was constitutional. However, he argued, in a dissent, that a bank owned by a state cannot constitutionally issue paper money in Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 36 U.S. 257, 349 (1837). http://supreme.justia.com/us/36/257/case.html Mpublius 05:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Did Story ever argue that Congress (as opposed to the states) cannot constitutionally issue paper money? I don't think that the present article implies that Story did make that argument or didn't make that argument, but in any event Briscoe was about issuance of paper money by states rather than by the federal government.Ferrylodge 06:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Following Madison comment is not a footnote and is out of context. James Madison's notes, from the Constitutional Convention in 1787, include a footnote where he says that the Constitution would allow the federal government to make "use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper", but would not allow the federal government to use paper as currency or legal tender, though there is no indication that he made that contention out loud at the Convention.[7] The above comment referenced by Madison was not a footnote but was included as part of the debate to take away the power to "issue bills of credit" from the federal government during the Constitutional Convention. It is therefore certain that he made that contention out loud at the Convention. Further this motion passed and the language authorizing this power was removed on a vote of 9 to 2. I corrected the entry but my changes were undone. A check of reference 7 will confirm the accuracy of my changes. FYI: The comments by Nathaniel Gorham referenced earlier in the article were also part of this same debate. The full text is as follows "Mr. GHORUM was for striking out, without inserting any prohibition. if the words stand they may suggest and lead to the measure." and "Mr. GHORUM. The power as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing." It seems that his names was misspelled by the author. 4.156.252.5 (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC) Regarding Nathaniel Gorham, Madison spelled his name wrong. Regarding whether Madison's statement about "use of public notes" was in a footnote, see, for example, the Cyclopædia of Political Science, Political Economy, and the Political History of the United States by the Best American and European Writers by John Lalor (1899): "[I]n explanation of his vote, Mr. Madison appended the following note: 'This vote in the affirmative by Virginia was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison, who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the government from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe and proper: and would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts.'" (Emphasis Added) So, I think the present Wikipedia article is accurate regarding Gorham and regarding Madison's footnote.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC) Disgree: The present article states for Mr. Madison "though there is no indication that he made that contention out loud at the Convention." This comment is contrary to fact as shown by reference 7. Mr. Madison did in fact state those words in debate during the Constitutional Convention and did in fact vote to take away legal tender powers from the federal government that were in a draft version of the Constitution. Said power being authorized under the Articles of Confederation and carried over onto the early draft of the Constitution. records of the debate from reference 7 Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best. Footnote from reference 7 FN23 This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, [FN24] and particularly for making the bills a tender [FN24] either for public or private debts. It should be pointed out that a Constitution Convention debate that resulted in the taking away of legal tender powers with respect to paper money (bills of credit), has quite a bit of relevance to this article and should have a prominent place instead of being swept under the rug. It should also be pointed out that Gorham, who is used as a supporter of paper money in this article also voted to take away this power. Mr. Gorham was the representative from Massachusetts in this debate and reference 7 shows that Massachusetts also voted to remove the language. From reference 7 On the motion for striking out N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN22] also FN22 In the transcript the vote reads: "New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, [FN*] North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye-9; New Jersey, Maryland, no-2." Many of the misrepresentations in this article seem to have their root in the inability of the editors to recognize the difference between a "Dollar bill" and a "Treasury bill" (per Madison "public notes"). One is money and the other is a debt instrument. The editors seem to have the impression that whenever wording appears showing that the person speaking is in favor of allowing the federal government to borrow money (i.e. issue debt instruments "bills" or "notes") the editors misconstrue the language to mean that the author of the statement is in favor of a legal tender paper "Dollar bill". One example is Gorham, who is being represented as in favor of paper money when he in fact voted against that power. The statement that paper money was issued by the First bank of the United States is also misrepresented, since NOBODY considers those notes legal tender and they are in fact similar to American Express Travelers Checks. Acceptance of these notes was not required by law and therefore they cannot be legal tender. 4.156.252.129 (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC) Madison's footnote says that he "acquiesced". The word acquiesce means "To accept or consent passively or without objection." So, I don't see any evidence that he spoke out loud rather than acquiesced silently. Regarding the vote to strike out the power to issue paper money, the article now says that Gorham "was for striking out an explicit power of Congress to issue paper money....That is what ultimately happened at the Convention." So, it seems like the article is already clear on that point.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC) I find your comment "So, I don't see any evidence that he spoke out loud rather than acquiesced silently." disturbing. Are you unaware then when recording a debate, the persons name is listed and then what he said? The record (Reference 7) shows that Mr. Madison did in fact SPEAK those words which I have copied above and now below. Records of the debate showing what was spoken in debate - from reference 7 Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best. Footnote from reference 7 - notice also that FN23 stands for (F)oot (N)ote 23. Vigra looks like a typo of Virginia which Mr. Madison represented. FN23 This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, [FN24] and particularly for making the bills a tender [FN24] either for public or private debts. Additionally I continue to be disturbed that the article, which purports to be a fair overview of this issue, referenced the debate to REMOVE LEGAL TENDER POWERS from the federal government yet NOT ONCE states that this debate took place and that the result was an OVERWHELMING vote in favor of taking away such powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.252.209 (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC) You're correct that Madison did record the following exchange: “ Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless. Mr. BUTLER, 2ds. the motion. Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best. ” Thus, Madison alternatively proposed to "prohibit the making them a tender" instead of removing the power to "emit bills." Madison's alternative proposal was not put to a vote, right? Instead, he acquiesced to Morris's proposal.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC) In anything, Madison "acquiesced" to Govr. Morris response to his comment. Mr Madison was originally was for a mere prohibition on making "bills of credit (paper money)" a tender, but he "acquiesced" to Gov. Morris response to TOTALLY prohibit the ISSUANCE of bills of credit. This is a MORE severe position since it is impossible to make legal tender what cannot be first issued. Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best. Mr. Govr. MORRIS. striking out the words will leave room still for notes of a responsible minister which will do all the good without the mischief. The Monied interest will oppose the plan of Government, if paper emissions be not prohibited. Further the current version of the article states that James Madison's notes, from the Constitutional Convention in 1787, include a footnote where he says that the Constitution would allow the federal government to make "use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper", but would not allow the federal government to use paper as currency --- his original position ----->"or legal tender", --- which was in fact spoken ----->though there is no indication that he made that contention out loud at the Convention.[7] Again this is in error, since his original "spoken" position was for the prohibition on making "bills of credit (paper money) a tender and he was then convinced to vote in favor for a total prohibition. I continue to be disturbed that this article makes no mention that the Constitutional Convention overwhelmingly voted ( 9 to 2) to take away legal tender powers from the federal government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.252.209 (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC) I've inserted the following parenthetical which will hopefully clarify the points you raise: "(the vote to strike was 9 to 2, and the Convention passed over Madison's suggestion 'to prohibit the making them a tender')."Ferrylodge (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC) I would prefer something clearer like During the Constitutional Convention, language in an early draft of the Constitution allowing the federal government the power to issue legal tender paper money was removed on a vote of 9-2. A lesser option allowing the issuance but removing the power to make it legal tender was mentioned but not acted upon. I've condensed your sentences: "language explicitly giving the federal government power to issue legal tender paper money was removed on a vote of 9-2, but an option allowing the issuance together with a prohibition against making it legal tender was not acted upon."Ferrylodge (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC) Back to Madison. As it currently appears I believe this section is misleading James Madison's notes, from the Constitutional Convention in 1787, include a footnote where he says that the Constitution would allow the federal government to make "use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper", but would not allow the federal government to use paper as currency or legal tender, though there is no indication that he made that contention out loud at the Convention.[7] Ether a removal of the last section (as follows) would be better James Madison's notes, from the Constitutional Convention in 1787, include a footnote where he says that the Constitution would allow the federal government to make "use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper", but would not allow the federal government to use paper as currency or legal tender. or an expanded section (as follows) would be better James Madison's notes, from the Constitutional Convention in 1787, include a footnote where he says that the Constitution would allow the federal government to make "use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper", but would not allow the federal government to use paper as currency or legal tender. During debate Mr. Madison was persuaded that his position of taking away the power to make paper money legal tender while retaining the power to issue it, was not safe, and that a prohibition on the issuance was a wiser option. 4.156.252.218 (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC) I think the best approach here is to simply put the full text of Madison's footnote into the present article, and I have just now done that. People can now easily read what Madison said, and judge for themselves.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC) The way the changes were made is a problem. I would like to change the text in the article itself and not as a footnote of a footnote. What I would like to see is below the foot note from the Convention is as follows FN23 This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, [FN24] and particularly for making the bills a tender [FN24] either for public or private debts. The language I did not find satisfactory is below and is unchanged. The bold text is misleading. James Madison's notes, from the Constitutional Convention in 1787, include a footnote where he says that the Constitution would allow the federal government to make "use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper", but would not allow the federal government to use paper as currency or legal tender, though there is no indication that he made the latter contention out loud at the Convention.[14] I have no objection to showing the footnotes from the debate itself as a replacement. If changed it should show something like the following James Madison's notes, from the Constitutional Convention in 1787, include the following footnotes. "FN23 This vote in the affirmative by Virga. (Virginia) was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, [FN24] and particularly for making the bills a tender [FN24] either for public or private debts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.27.66 (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 4.156.27.66 (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 4.156.27.66 (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC) I will try to get back to this in the evening. Thanks, by the way, for the civil tone of the conversation, and I hope you see that I am trying to understand and respond to your concerns as best I canFerrylodge (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC) On Madison I continue to believe that the last portion (in italics) of the following is in error and would be more accurate if deleted or replaced with the actual Footnotes themselves as per previous discussion. James Madison's notes, from the Constitutional Convention in 1787, include a footnote where he says that the Constitution would allow the federal government to make "use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper", but would not allow the federal government to use paper as currency or legal tender, though there is no indication that he made the latter contention out loud at the Convention.[14] The following in fact shows that he did comment on the prohibition of making paper money legal tender. Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best. Mr. Govr. MORRIS. striking out the words will leave room still for notes of a responsible minister which will do all the good without the mischief. The Monied interest will oppose the plan of Government, if paper emissions be not prohibited. FN23 This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, [FN24] and particularly for making the bills a tender [FN24] either for public or private debts. It should also be pointed out that the public notes referred to in the footnote, are not paper money but are promissory notes (instruments used to borrow money). Mr Madison is stating in the footnote that the motion that was voted on would allow the federal government to borrow money, but would deny it the power to use paper as currency or legal tender. If you compare Mr Madison's footnote to what I believe is Mr Gorham's position you will find that Mr Madison and Mr Gorham are of the exact same opinion. As they both voted in favor of removing the language that should not be surprising. Further: The response from Governor Morris which from the footnote Mr Madison acquiesced to (see footnote above) prohibits the making of promissory notes legal tender. This is the exact same position taken by the Supreme Court in Craig v. Missouri Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best. 4.156.27.203 (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Regarding Madison, I have just edited the article to more carefully say, "there is no indication that all the contents of his footnote were uttered aloud at the Convention."Ferrylodge (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC) While better, I continue to think that it can be made more accurate. The change removes an inaccurate statement, and replaces it with something that may also be inaccurate. The comment may be in error since neither you or I have access to all the records of the debate. As such it is inappropriate to state that something did not happen. It is only appropriate to say that something DID happen for which evidence has been found in the historical record. I would also like to point out that even if all the records of the debate were made available, it would still not be conclusive evidence since not all conversations by all delegates at all times during the Convention were recorded. 4.156.252.43 (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Ghorham comment also out of context, in error, and quite misleading As currently showing Regarding paper money, Nathaniel Gorham explained at the Constitutional Convention that he "was for striking out" an explicit power of Congress to issue paper money, but Gorham was also against "inserting any prohibition."[7] That is what ultimately happened at the Convention. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress power to "borrow money on the credit of the United States," and therefore Gorham envisioned that "The power [to emit paper money], as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing."[7 Per the above it would seem that Mr. Gorham was stating that the power to emit paper money was derived from the power to borrow. This is in fact EMPHATICALLY NOT THE CASE Mr Gorham was responding to a comment by Col Mason who was unwilling to remove legal tender powers from Congress as he could not foresee the future and did not want to limit Congress in an emergency. Mr. Gorhams response indicates that he thought that it would not be either necessary or SAFE to give Congress any power BEYOND borrowing. Mr. Gorham then voted for Massachusetts in favor of removing the power to "issue bills of credit (paper money)" from the Constitution. Mr. GHORUM was for striking out, without inserting any prohibition. if the words stand they may suggest and lead to the measure. 4.156.252.209 (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 4.156.252.209 (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC) Col. [FN20] MASON had doubts on the subject. Congs. he thought would not have the power unless it were expressed. Though he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet as he could not foresee all emergences, he was unwilling to tie the hands of the Legislature. He observed that the late war could not have been carried on, had such a prohibition existed. Mr. GHORUM. The power as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing. Since the only delegate named Mason was from Virginia and Virginia also voted to remove the language. Mr Gorham must have been at least somewhat convincing. 4.156.252.209 (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.252.209 (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC) Since the only delegate named Mason was from Virginia and Virginia also voted to remove the language. Mr Gorham must have been at least somewhat convincing. 4.156.252.209 (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC) I do not understand your point about Gorham. This Wikipedia article presently says: "Gorham envisioned that 'The power [to emit paper money], as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing.'" I don't see why that is incorrect. Here is the exchange with Mason: Mr. GHORUM was for striking out, without inserting any prohibition. if the words stand they may suggest and lead to the measure. Col. MASON had doubts on the subject. Congs. he thought would not have the power unless it were expressed. Though he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet as he could not foresee all emergences, he was unwilling to tie the hands of the Legislature. He observed that the late war could not have been carried on, had such a prohibition existed. Mr. GHORUM. The power as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing. It seems pretty clear that Gorham wanted to strike out the explicit power, but still allow issuance of paper money via borrowing. Mason seems to have been convinced by Gorham that Congress would have that power even after striking out the explicit grant.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC) Incorrect. The whole issue of the debate was the removal of language allowing the power to issue legal tender paper money and Mr. Gorham voted in favor. If the power is removed how can it still exist in some form? If someone takes your house (car, money, etc etc) away from you, do you still have it in some form? The answer is obviously NO! If the Constitutional Convention took away the power to make legal tender paper money then they took it away and it is NO LONGER THERE. There is NO power that creates legal tender paper money through the act of borrowing. Such a creature is imaginary and does not exist. What is being borrowed when a dollar bill is printed and issued? The answer is ZIP! NADA! NOTHING! Again such a creature is imaginary and does not exist. Again: Gorham was advising Mason that it was neither necessary nor SAFE to allow Congress the power to issue paper money and that the only power necessary and safe for Congress to have "involved" the power to borrow money. Mr. GHORUM was for striking out, without inserting any prohibition. if the words stand they may suggest and lead to the measure. Col. MASON had doubts on the subject. Congs. he thought would not have the power unless it were expressed. Though he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet as he could not foresee all emergences, he was unwilling to tie the hands of the Legislature. He observed that the late war could not have been carried on, had such a prohibition existed. Mr. GHORUM. The power as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing. Mr. Gorham in fact voted to take away the power for fear that it would "lead to the measure" (it would lead to another paper money fiasco like the Continental). I cannot see him reassuring a colleague that the power he fears and voted to get rid of, may be used through some sort of back door. I can easily see him stating to a colleague that a power he fears, is neither necessary nor safe to give, and that if Congress needs money it has the power to borrow. 4.156.252.209 (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC) It would make perfect sense for someone to have opposed an explicit grant of power, while also opposing a prohibition, so that the ability to issue money would necessarily be limited to instances of borrowing, and would also be limited to "necessary and proper" instances. Clearly, "the power" to which Ghoram was referring was the same "the power" to which Mason had just referred, and that was "the power" to emit paper money.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC) Disagree yet again: In the later part of the comment Mason was referring to "the power" of Congress to fund a war and and possible difficulties if the power to print money was removed. Col. MASON had doubts on the subject. Congs. he thought would not have the power unless it were expressed. Though he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet as he could not foresee all emergences, he was unwilling to tie the hands of the Legislature. He observed that the late war could not have been carried on, had such a prohibition existed. Mr. GHORUM. The power (to fund war) as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved (contained) in that of borrowing. Issuing paper money when the power to "issue" has been removed is IMPOSSIBLE and the Supreme Court has so ruled. In Craig v. Missouri the Supreme Court States It has been long settled, that a promise made in consideration of an act which is forbidden by law is void. It will not be questioned, that an act forbidden by the constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law, is against law. Now the constitution forbids a state to "emit bills of credit." The loan of these certificates is the very act which is forbidden. It is not the making of them while they lie in the loan offices; but the issuing of them, the putting them into circulation, which is the act of emission; the act that is forbidden by the constitution. The consideration of this note is the emission of bills of credit by the state. The very act which constitutes the consideration, is the act of emitting bills of credit, in the mode prescribed by the law of Missouri; which act is prohibited by the constitution of the United States. as for "back door" usage of Bills of Credit, in the same case a Supreme Court Justice stated Mr. Justice Johnson. . . . This leads us to the main question: "Was this an emission of bills of credit in the sense of the constitution?" And here the difficulty which presents itself is to determine whether it was a loan or an emission of paper money; or, perhaps, whether it was not an emission of paper money, under the disguise of a loan. There cannot be a doubt that this latter view of the subject must always be examined; for that which it is not permitted to do directly, cannot be legalized by any change of names or forms. Acts done "in fraudem legis," are acts in violation of law. Also from that case The great end and object of this restriction on the power of the states, will furnish the best definition of the terms under consideration. The whole was intended to exclude every thing from use, as a circulating medium, except gold and silver; and to give to the United States the exclusive control over the coining and valuing of the metallic medium. That the real dollar may represent property, and not the shadow of it. 4.156.252.235 (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC) Well, maybe we are now focussing in on our main disagreement. Gohram said, "The power as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing." I say that "the power" to which Gohram was referring was the power to issue paper money. You say that "the power" to which Gorham was referring was the power to fund war. Can you give me some time to research this further? I'm pretty sure you're mistaken, but I would like to research it further to make sure, okay?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC) I've inserted a new footnote into the article, quoting a book by Bernard Siegan. Siegan understands Gorham as having said that, "The central government would be able to emit promissory paper ‘as it will be necessary or safe’ pursuant to the borrowing power." Feel free to investigate to see if you can find a contrary source, regarding what Gorham was saying.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC) You make my case (that he was NOT reffering to issuing bills of credit) for me. A promissory note is not legal tender paper money. A promissory note is a CONTRACT (a promise) to pay a sum of MONEY. It is not MONEY itself. A DEBT INSTRUMENT such as a Treasure bill is a promissory note for a set number of dollars. It is not dollars in and of itself. A paper dollar bill is NOT a promissory note. Is is a "bill of credit", and the Constitutional Convention TOOK AWAY the power to ISSUE such beasts. The wiki entry on the definition of a promissory note is below. A promissory note, also referred to as a note payable in accounting, is a contract detailing the terms of a promise by one party (the maker) to pay a sum of money to the other (the payee). Again: In Craig v. Missouri the Supreme Court ruled that the ISSUANCE of paper money disguised as a loan was PROHIBITED. Read the sections from the case I have included above, if you have not already done so. If you are wrong on Gorham's position you are putting words in his mouth If you are right then the Supreme Court has ruled that his position is CONTRARY to the Constitution. Also Again: You need to be clear as to what is a "dollar bill" and what is a "Treasury bill", One is legal tender paper money and the other is a promise to pay. 4.156.252.218 (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC) The Wikipedia article on Promissory note says: "At various times in history promissory notes have acted as a form of privately issued currency. In many jurisdictions today, bearer negotiable promissory notes are illegal precisely because they can act as an alternative currency. Contrary to this popular belief being perpetuated by the banking community, House Joint Resolution 192 passed by US Congress in 1933, explicitly cites Promissory Notes, Bills of Exchange, Drafts and the like as legal tender in addition to Federal Reserve Notes." This seems relevant.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC) At various times in history everything from goats to sea shells has been used as money. This has no bearing on what Gorham meant. From the context he was referring to funding war by borrowing. The reference you dug up supports that interpretation and the current article is misrepresenting his position. That misrepresentation needs to be corrected. As for Resolution 192, if the Constitutional Convention STRIPPED the power to issue paper money from the federal government (which it did) then Congress does NOT HAVE that power and any attempt to use that power (or pass on that power)is unconstitutional. This is a simple concept. If you are striiped of a title you no longer have that title. If you are stripped of a position, you no longer have that position. In the same manner If you are stripped of a power, you no longer have that power. It's not as simple as that. It would make good sense to strip you of a larger power if it is believed that you already have a smaller power that sufficiently includes part of the larger power.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC) That is exactly what happened. From personal experience the founders determined that paper money was prone to abuse. They determined to totally do away with that power in the name of justice, and that a limited form of legal tender power confined to gold and silver coin was sufficient to the needs of the people. To make the coinage in all states uniform, the power to coin was removed from the states and invested in the federal government. As Madison stated in Federalist #44 The use of paper money has resulted in "an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it." In other words "the only way to atone for the crime was to recognize it as a crime and never do it again" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.27.26 (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC) I have edited the article just to clarify that Madison was discussing Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, in Federalist #44.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 4.156.27.203 (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC) I continue to believe that Gorham was referring to the power (to raise funds for conducting war) and not the power (to emit paper money). The interpretation, currently showing, makes absolutely no sense when taken in context. I simply cannot see a person who is in the process of voting to prohibit the issuance of paper money, stating that such a power was still be usable after it is prohibited. As further evidence I cite the reference you dug up which supports my interpretation. Following is the comment in context Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless. Mr. GHORUM was for striking out, without inserting any prohibition. if the words stand they may suggest and lead to the measure. Col. [FN20] MASON had doubts on the subject. Congs. he thought would not have the power unless it were expressed. Though he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet as he could not foresee all emergences, he was unwilling to tie the hands of the Legislature. He observed that the late war could not have been carried on, had such a prohibition existed. Mr. GHORUM. The power as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing. In context Mr Gorham was responding to Mr Mason's concern that the prohibition would tie the hands of the legislature and would place limits on the power to raise funds for conducting war. His statement in response shows that in his opinion, the power (to raise funds) as far it will be necessary or safe, is involved (contained) in that of borrowing. The following section therefore should therefore be deleted as misrepresenting Gorham's position. and therefore Gorham envisioned that "The power [to emit paper money], as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing."[13] In other words, the power to emit paper money (e.g. bank notes) has been justified by invoking the Necessary-and-proper clause in combination with the power to borrow money. and replaced with (additions are added from my reading of the opinions expressed in the cases themselves) The power to emit paper money (e.g. bank notes) has been justified by invoking the Necessary-and-proper clause in combination with the power to borrow money, in combination with the power to coin, and as an inherent power of a sovereign nation. 4.156.27.203 (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC) More proof that Gorham was referring to borrowing money. The following line appears in the first draft of The Constitution (from constitution.org). To borrow money, and emit bills on the credit of the United States; The listing of powers in that draft were separated by semicolons(;) and each power was showing on a seperate line. The power to borrow money, and the power to emit bills of credit were separated by a come (,) and showing on the same line. In other words they were considered variations of the same power. Since Mr Gorham voted to remove the second portion of that power, it can only mean he was refering to the first portion in his comment (below). As can plainly be seen, the first portion of that language is the power "to borrow money". Mr. GHORUM. The power as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing. 4.156.27.97 (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Regarding Gorham, I have just edited the article to more precisely track the cited source.Ferrylodge The current version is as follows and continues to be in error Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress power to "borrow money on the credit of the United States," and therefore Gorham envisioned that "The power [e.g. to emit promissory paper], as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing."[13] In other words, the power to emit paper money (e.g. bank notes) has been justified by invoking the Necessary-and-proper clause in combination with the power to borrow money. The term In other words needs to go as it indicates that Mr Gorham was for the issuance of debt instruments circulating as paper money. His vote indicates otherwise. From the definitions of "bill of credit" shown elsewhere a "bill of credit" originates as a debt instrument that circulates as paper money with the expectation that it will be redeemed at some point in the future, by the issuing government, by payment of gold and silver coin or accepted by the issuing government as a payment of taxes and retired. The making of it a "legal tender" instrument forced its acceptance. The reason why this version of the power to borrow was stripped from the Constitution was the tendency of government to NOT accept it for payment of taxes or redeem it for coin, and leaving it valueless to the detriment of those holding the paper. Mr. Madison specifically makes the point as to whether the power to issue them should be retained while the power to make then a legal tender is removed. He is convince by Gov. Morris that barring the "issuance" of such beasts was the only safe course. From the debates Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best. Mr. Govr. MORRIS. striking out the words will leave room still for notes of a responsible minister which will do all the good without the mischief. The Monied interest will oppose the plan of Government, if paper emissions be not prohibited. As a matter of historical record Mr Gorham, when acting as President of the United States in Congress Assembled, moved the Federal government back to a "specie" standard and away from the Continental paper standard. During his term it was decided to not "make payment in paper money for purchases made by the federal government". If his vote at the Convention in favor of barring the issuance of bills of credit is not enough to convince that he was against paper money, his actions as president should be! From nathanielgorham.com/ A few days later, they agreed to bar payment of United States in Congress Assembled requisitions in paper money that "wasn't worth a continental". The action was followed with post­masters' orders "to receive no other money in payment for postage than specie." Not even the Federal Government had confidence in its own currency. For reasons why the Supreme Court acted as it did, one should look at the case opinion and not at misrepresentations of the position of a man long dead. 4.156.252.43 (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC) I have made some further edits to address your concerns. If you have further comments, please try to be as concise as possible, so we can try to address your concerns more quickly. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC) I thank you for this change. While reading the revised language I came across a snippet on Gorham which I had previously overlooked and which also needs to be changed The power to "issue bills of credit" (paper money) is mentioned in the Constitution as a prohibition on the States, and could therefore be considered a Constitutional-level power and not a "lesser" power that can be authorized under the Necessary and Proper Clause, although that is not what Gorham envisioned, nor what has occurred in practice. Should be changed to The power to "issue bills of credit" (paper money) is mentioned in the Constitution as a prohibition on the States, and could therefore be considered a Constitutional-level power and not a "lesser" power that can be authorized under the Necessary and Proper Clause, although that is not what has occurred in practice. 4.156.252.118 (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Original intent The fact that the Constitutional Convention took away the power to issue bills of credit (legal tender paper money) on a vote of 9 to 2 needs to be included here and not elsewhere. Is is clear that the "ORIGINAL INTENT"" of the founding fathers was to make sure that the federal government would not be able to exercise such a dangerous power. 4.156.252.218 (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC) I agree that the paragraph about the constitutiuonal convention ought to be moved into the original intent section. I'll do it.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Stephen Field Excepts from the cases The clause to coin money must be read in connection with the prohibition upon the states to make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. The two taken to- [110 U.S. 421, 464] gether clearly show that the coins to be fabricated under the authority of the general government, and as such to be a legal tender for debts, are to be composed principally, if not entirely, of the metals of gold and silver. Coins of such metals are necessarily a legal tender to the amount of their respective values, without any legislative enactment, and the statute of the United States providing that they shall be such tender is only declaratory of their effect when offered in payment. When the constitution says, therefore, that congress shall have the power to coin money, interpreting that clause with the prohibition upon the states, it says it shall have the power to make coins of the precious metals a legal tender, for that alone which is money can be a legal tender. If this be the true import of the language, nothing else can be made a legal tender. From the above it seems that he is of the opinion that gold and silver coins are "natural" money and have inherent legal tender properties in and of themselves. The fact that Congress has the power to authorize the minting of a coin containing one "dollar" worth of metal automatically makes the coin a legal tender "one dollar" coin due to the "inherent money" properties of the coin itself, and not from any power granted in the Constitution. repeating the relevant portion of the excerpt Coins of such metals are necessarily a legal tender to the amount of their respective values, without any legislative enactment, and the statute of the United States providing that they shall be such tender is only declaratory of their effect when offered in payment. In the same manner if Congress today authorized the minting of a 1 ounce gold coin, Congress "declares" the the coin contains one ounce of metal and does not change the MEANING of one ounce. The "dollar" is a unit of measure. Per The Coinage act of 1873 one "dollar" weight of metal is 412 1/2 grains. Later on Fields presciently comments that the "construction" of powers would in the end change the nature of the Constitution and break down the barriers limiting federal powers. One does not have to look far to see that he was right. But beyond and above all the objections which I have stated to the decision recognizing a power in congress to impart the legal-tender quality to the notes of the government, is my objection to the rule of construction, adopted by the court to reach its conclusions-a rule which, fully carried out, would change the whole nature of our constitution, and break down the barriers which separate a government of limited from one of unlimited powers. When the constitution came before the conventions of the several states for adoption, apprehension existed that other powers than those designated might be claimed; and it led to the first 10 amendments. When these were presented to the states they were preceded by a preamble stating that the conventions of a number of the states had, at the time of adopting the constitution, expressed a desire, 'in order to prevent misconception or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.' One of them is found in the tenth amendment, which declares [110 U.S. 421, 467] that 'the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.' The framers of the constitution, as I have said, were profoundly impressed with the evils which had resulted from the vicious legislation of the states making notes a legal tender, and they determined that such a power should not exist any longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.111.117 (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC) I agree that the framers of the Constitution were profoundly impressed with the evils which had resulted from the vicious legislation of the states making notes a legal tender, and they determined that such a power should not exist any longer. But banning the states is not the same thing as banning the feds. Anyway, I hope that the changes to the article during the past week or so have been responsive to at least some of your concerns. Consensus is a hard thing to achieve sometimes, but at least this Wikipedia article provides a reader with a starting point from which to explore the subject further. Happy Holidays and New Year to you.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Regarding your comment "But banning the states is not the same thing as banning the feds." The debate in question was in fact a debate on STRIPPING the power to "emit bills of credit" from the feds. The Articles of Confederation included the power to issue bills of credit as a power exercisable by the federal government. The federal government was in fact as guilty as the states in the misuse of this power. To repeat a previous point If you are STRIPPED of a power you no longer have that power. From the Articles of Confederation Article XII. All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged. To quote the wiki article on the Continental The Continental was the name of a paper currency issued by several American Colonies, as well as by the Continental Congress, after the Revolutionary War began in 1775. With no solid backing and being easily counterfeited, the continentals quickly lost their value, giving voice to the phrase "not worth a continental". While I am happy with some of the changes, I continue to be most unhappy with what looks like a misrepresentation of Mr. Gorham's views. I would also like the language as to Mr. Madison's lack of comment corrected. As for Mr Field he did in fact believe that Congress had the power to issue coin which would be legal tender, although his comments indicate that his belief was that the power of legal tender was inherent in the coins themselves and not a power authorized by the Constitution. I would like to see his opinion that Coins of such metals are necessarily a legal tender to the amount of their respective values, without any legislative enactment reflected, but the present language is substantially correct. The current language is as follows According to Justice Stephen Field, dissenting in the Legal Tender Cases, Congress had no power to make paper money a legal tender, but believed "the Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to make metallic coins a legal tender."[1] A more correct version would be something like (italics are changes) According to Justice Stephen Field, dissenting in the Legal Tender Cases, Congress had no power to make paper money a legal tender, but believed "the Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to make precious metal coins, which in and of themselves would be legal tender without any legislative enactment."[1] His actual comments are above if you wish to compare the accuracy of the two statements. If i was to place the priority on the need for a correction I would say that the comment attributed to Gorham is especially bothersome to me as I consider it an act of misrepresentation. Of the other two, one is an error that needs correction (Mr Madison) and the other a comment that could be made more accurate (Mr Field). 4.156.27.203 (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC) As you say, this Wikipedia article is now accurate about what Justice Field said. Additionally, I believe you have omitted some important context. Field: "coins to be fabricated under the authority of the general government, and as such to be a legal tender for debts, are to be composed principally, if not entirely, of the metals of gold and silver. Coins of such metals are necessarily a legal tender to the amount of their respective values, without any legislative enactment...." Field never said that the legal tender value of copper coins or brass coins cannot be regulated by Congress.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Regarding Gorham, I have just edited the article to more precisely track the cited source.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Regarding Madison, I have just edited the article to more carefully say, "there is no indication that all the contents of his footnote were uttered aloud at the Convention."Ferrylodge (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC) One must be careful when using the word "value". As used in the Constitution it means "metal content". The "dollar" is a unit to weight. Per The Coinage act of 1873 one "dollar weight" of metal is 412 1/2 grains. There can be no question that Congress has the power to legislate the "weight of metal" of all coins issued by the federal government. That includes coins minted of baser metals. The important term in understanding Field's position is the term without any legislative enactment Field believed that gold and silver coins are in and of themselves legal tender with their legal tender value determined by the "weight of metal" in each coin. He did not state that Congress had the Constitutional power to "legislate" such coins legal tender, with a specific value, through law. In the same manner, Field would likely state that a chicken is a chicken, a donkey is a donkey, and a lion is a lion, and that they are that in and of themselves, and do not need "legislative enactment" to be what they already are. To Field gold and silver coins are legal tender money because money is gold and silver. More from his dissenting opinion When the constitution says, therefore, that congress shall have the power to coin money, interpreting that clause with the prohibition upon the states, it says it shall have the power to make coins of the precious metals a legal tender, for that alone which is money can be a legal tender. If this be the true import of the language, nothing else can be made a legal tender. We all know that the value of the notes of the government in the market, and in the commercial world generally, depends upon their convertibility on demand into coin; and as confidence in such convertibility increases or diminishes, so does the exchangeable value of the notes vary. So far from becoming themselves standards of value by reason of the legislative declaration to that effect, their own value is measured by the facility with which they can be exchanged into that which alone is regarded as money by the commercial world. They are promises of money, but they are not money in the sense of the constitution. Additional small correction to the article there are 2 "see also" sections and they should be consolidated. 4.156.252.148 (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC) I combined the "see also" sections, thanks. I'm not sure if you're suggesting further changes to the article at this point, but I hope we can leave the article as-is for awhile. We run the risk that the article's value might become lower than the value of our time spent working on it.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Constitutional Convention Stripped power to issue paper money from the Federal Government Since there seems to be some confusion on what the Constitutional Convention did I am adding this section to the discussion Your comment is as follows I agree that the framers of the Constitution were profoundly impressed with the evils which had resulted from the vicious legislation of the states making notes a legal tender, and they determined that such a power should not exist any longer. But banning the states is not the same thing as banning the feds. My response to your comment Regarding your comment "But banning the states is not the same thing as banning the feds." The debate in question was in fact a debate on STRIPPING the power to "emit bills of credit" from the feds. The Articles of Confederation included the power to issue bills of credit as a power exercisable by the federal government. The federal government was in fact as guilty as the states in the misuse of this power. To repeat a previous point If you are STRIPPED of a power you no longer have that power. From the Articles of Confederation Article XII. All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged. To quote the wiki article on the Continental The Continental was the name of a paper currency issued by several American Colonies, as well as by the Continental Congress, after the Revolutionary War began in 1775. With no solid backing and being easily counterfeited, the continentals quickly lost their value, giving voice to the phrase "not worth a continental". Additional material - several definitions of the term "bill of credit" BILL OF CREDIT - It is provided by the Constitution of the United States, Art. I, Sec. X, that no state shall 'emit bills of credit, or make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment or debts.' Such bills of credit are declared to mean promissory notes or bills issued exclusively on the credit of the state, and for the payment of which the faith of the state only is pledged. The prohibition, therefore, does not apply to the notes of a state bank drawn on the credit of a particular fund set apart for the purpose. Bills of credit may be defined to be paper issued and intended to circulate through the community for its ordinary purposes as money redeemable at a future day. Bill of Credit A bill of credit is some sort of paper medium by which value is exchanged between the government and individuals. Money is a bill of credit, but a bill of credit need not be money. An interest-bearing certificate that was issued by Missouri, and usable in the payment of taxes, was thus ruled to be an unconstitutional bill of credit. Bill of credit. (a) Within the constitution of the United States, a paper issued by a State, on the mere faith and credit of the State, and designed to circulate as money. No State shall ``emit bills of credit. --U. S. Const. --Peters. --Wharton. --Bouvier A portion of the first draft of the Constitution from constitution.org showing that the first draft of the US Constitution contained language allowing the federal power to exercise the power to issue "bills of credit" 2 VII Sect. 1. The Legislature of the United States shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States; To establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States; To coin money; To regulate the value of foreign coin; To fix the standard of weights and measures; To establish Post-offices; To borrow money, and emit bills on the credit of the United States; To appoint a Treasurer by ballot; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To make rules concerning captures on land and water; To declare the law and punishment of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and the punishment of counterfeiting the coin of the United States, and of offenses against the law of nations; To subdue a rebellion in any State, on the application of its legislature; To make war; To raise armies; To build and equip fleets; To call forth the aid of the militia, in order to execute the laws of the Union, enforce treaties, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; And to make all laws that shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested, by this Constitution, in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer 7 thereof; Since the power "to coin" is listed separately the founders considered that a different power from the power to issue "bills of credit". It was understood by the founding fathers that the power the power to "issue bills of credit" had been STRIPPED from the federal government during debate at the Constitutional Convention. To quote from the Constitutional debates Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless. On the motion for striking out N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN22] A Supreme Court ruling in defiance of that action can only be considered UNCONSTITUTIONAL! 4.156.27.97 (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC) You're correct that the Convention debate we were talking about was about stripping the feds of a broad power to emit bills of credit. However, Federalist 44 that we were talking about was about stripping the states rather than the feds.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC) As mentioned previously, the author of Federalist 44 did not have to talk about stripping that power from the feds since it had ALREADY BEEN STRIPPED from the Constitution in debate by a vote of 9 to 2. To yet again repeat a previous point If you are STRIPPED of a power you no longer have that power. 4.156.252.43 (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC) The Supreme Court's Constitution by Siegan ( used as ref 14) has some errors The accuracy of the following comment “Because the power was not banned, Congress could print paper money and designate it legal tender under its necessary and proper power (article I, section 8, clause 18) once the required relationship to an enumerated power had been established." is suspect as it a matter of historical record that during the Convention the federal government was stripped of the power to issue paper money. At the time, by all involved, this action was in fact considered a "banning" of that power. Further the Constitution did not muster enough support for approval without the Bill of Rights, the 10th amendment of which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." and the peamble of which states "The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution." Since the power to issue paper money was discussed during the Convention and then stripped from the language, it can in no way be seen as a delegated power. Additional comment on page 27 which is in error and may have contributed to the above statement is the following under point 2 "Only Madison and Butler spoke critically of legal tender (paper money)". Such is in emphatically NOT the case. Madisons comment was in fact MILD compared to that of READ and LANGHORN Mr. READ, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations. Mr. LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan (the Constitution being worked on) than retain the three words "(and emit bills") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.27.97 (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 4.156.27.97 (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC) If you find a reliable and comparable source that says the opposite of Siegan, then possibly we could cite it. But how about if we take a break for awhile?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC) The above was done for the benefit of anyone viewing the discussion of this topic and not in the expectation that the article itself would be edited. I can live with the Madison and Field language as is, although if in my opinion both could be improved. 4.156.27.97 (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Opposing view to those of Siegan who stated that "the power was not banned". Thomas Jefferson Withers - Commenting on the Constitutional Convention while arguing against the legality of paper money under the Confederate Constitution We can draw instruction as to the true meaning of the words "to coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin," from sources vastly more profound and authoritative than any dictionary, or of all of them combined, and to such sources I resort. The Committee of Five presented to the Convention at Philadelphia, August 6, 1787, the "Draft of a Constitution." The draft contained the following language, Art. 7, enumerating the powers of Congress, to wit: "To coin money: to regulate the value of foreign coin--to borrow money, and emit bills on the credit of the United States." Art. 13: No State, without the consent of the Legislature of the United States, shall emit bills of credit, or make anything but SPECIE a tender in payment of debts," etc. Now, observe, according to the "draft" Congress was to be empowered to "coin money" and "emit bills of credit"--i. e., a paper currency, undoubtedly. Were they the same or equivalent things, in the contemplation of the convention? If so, why specify both? That body knew how to use the English language, and were not given to tautology. The States were prohibited to make anything but "specie" a legal tender without the consent of Congress. The scheme is manifest that proceeded from the brain of the Committee of Five. It was this: Congress alone should issue a paper currency, and the States should be confined, as to a legal tender, to specie, and that alone, unless Congress should "emit bills of credit;" and in that case, the States might, had Congress authorized it, not that they should, make the Federal "bills of credit" a legal tender. But not even by this scheme, as it came from the committee, was Congress empowered to declare what should be a legal tender in payment of debts. But soon afterward Congress was shorn of the power to make a paper currency, or to allow a State to use such a currency, made by any authority whatever, as a legal tender. To the proof: "August 16.--It was moved and seconded to strike the words'and emit bills,' out of the 8th clause of the first section of the 7th article--which passed in the affirmative"--nine states aye--two (New Jersey and Maryland) nay. Thus the clause read (as it now reads in the Constitution of the United States and in our own) " to borrow money on the credit," etc. Again: the twelfth article of the "draft" provided as follows: "No State shall coin money nor grant letters of marque," etc. In the Convention, August 28, "it was moved and seconded to insert the words'nor emit bills of credit,' after the word'money' in the twelfth article--which passed in the affirmative"--yeas, 8; nay, (Virginia) 1; divided, 1 (Maryland). "It was moved and seconded to insert the following clause after the last amendment:'Nor make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;' which passed unanimously in the affirmative--eleven States being present." It is now established, upon a foundation impregnable, that deliberately, on specific motion, and by ayes and noes, the Convention, overruling its committee, denied to Congress the power to emit "bills of credit," or to authorize the States to make a paper issue a legal tender, but explicitly and rigidly confined the former to the power to "coin money"--that is, to make specie, to render it current, at a regulated value, and the States to that, and that only, as a legal tender. 4.156.252.212 (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Is there a problem with citing either of the above highlighted section in opposition to Siegan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.252.42 (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't realize that you were suggesting further changes to the Wikipedia article. Do you have links to these sources, so I can take a look at them? Although cited sources do not have to be available online, it's much easier for everyone if the sources can be accessed on the internet.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC) The above is from "CATO" ON CONSTITUTIONAL "MONEY" AND LEGAL TENDER. located at docsouth.unc.edu/imls/witherst/witherst.html 4.156.27.136 (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Well, that Cato is certainly not the same as the great Antifederalist Cato. You're referring, it seems, to a pro-slavery southerner who wrote under the name "Cato". I'm not aware that he is considered a reputable authority nowadays. It might be better to cite instead a contemporary scholar, in opposition to Siegan.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Now why am I not surprised you came up with an objection? Are you having trouble with the facts of the matter? You asked for a contrary opinion to Siegan's obviously erronious one. I gave you one that was clear and much more accurate. The historical documents referenced for this article CLEARLY show that Siegan was obviously in error with his comment, while Withers is obviously exactly right! The power WAS in fact banned at the Constitutional Convention, exactly as Withers states. Why do you object to a posting the more accurate of the two positions? As for the credentials of Mr. Withers, he served as a Judge under both the US and the Confederate States. He was a delegate to the Convention of the 0rdinance of Secession and when this Convention became a provisional Congress of the Confederacy, he was chosen one of the two Senators from South Carolina. As shown by the following he was highly regarded. The following description of Judge Withers is from "Reminiscences of Public Men," by Governor B. F. Perry. "Judge Withers was a man of distinguished talent and ability. His intellect was as keen and bright as a Damascus blade, and he wielded it on all occasions, in public and in private, most effectually. Every word that fell from his lips in conversation, on the Bench, or in public speaking, had a telling effect. No one was ever left in doubt as to his meaning when he discussed any question. He had moral courage in a high degree, and cared not whom he pleased or offended. He was very sarcastic and bitter in his denunciations of men and measures. No one ever possessed less of the demagogue than Judge Withers. No one ever more conscientiously did what he thought was right, regardless of consequences. 4.156.252.187 (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Incidentally, Withers was also a notable figure in the history of gay rights.[1] Without taking any position about Withers, or about his stance defending slavery, or anything else about him, I would simply ask you again whether any writer since Withers has taken the stance for which you cite him? Wikipedia has policies about giving undue weight to fringe points of view, and if no one has sided with Withers on the legal tender issue since the days of the Confederacy, then there's a legitimate question about giving Withers's view undue weight in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Your statement that you have NOT taken a position is suspect. When you asked for an opinion in opposition to Siegan (whose comment is plainly IN ERROR) you did not ask for credentials or time period. In fact Withers has better credentials then Siegan. By refusing to add his accurate commentary in opposition to that of Siegan's plainly inaccurate commentary, you have taken a position. As for his position being "fringe", it was THE opinion up to the time of the legal tender cases, as shown by the quote from Thomas Jefferson already showing, as well as the decision on Craig v Missouri, which states The whole (The Constitution) was intended to exclude every thing from use, as a circulating medium, except gold and silver; and to give to the United States the exclusive control over the coining and valuing of the metallic medium. That the real dollar may represent property, and not the shadow of it. Why do you wish to show a comment by someone who plainly did not do his research on this subject and ignore the opinion of someone why did in fact do his research? As shown by the current version of the Wiki article, The Continental Congress did in fact take a vote to strip language form the Constitution allowing the federal government to issue paper money, and that motion passed by a vote of 9 to 2 EXACTLY as Withers states and in direct opposition to the comment by Siegan. Yet again, when a power is stripped, the use of that power is BANNED! Is this concept difficult to grasp? 4.156.252.248 (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC) You said: "As for his [Withers's] position being 'fringe', it was THE opinion up to the time of the legal tender cases, as shown by the quote from Thomas Jefferson already showing, as well as the decision on Craig v Missouri...." Thomas Jefferson is a much more notable and reliable source than Withers. If the viewpoint of Withers was shared by Jefferson, and the opinion of Jefferson is already showing in the present Wikipedia article, then I do not understand what the problem here is. The viewpoint would be much more persuausive coming from Jefferson than from Withers. We could also mention Craig v. Missouri in the present Wikipedia article, and again that would seem to be a much more notable and reliable source than Withers, but if Craig v. Missouri was just saying the same thing as Jefferson and Withers then maybe it would be best to mention Craig v. Missouri in the footnote that cites Jefferson.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC) The position of Jefferson is being treated as a "personal" opinion and not a comment on the Constitutional Convention. Siegan's comment is referring to the Constitutional Convention and is plainly in error when viewing the text of the Convention debate. Withers is also commenting on the Constitutional Convention and much more accurately. In fact I find it hard to believe that a more accurate account CAN be written. If commentary on the Constitutional Convention that is plainly in error can be included then I see no reason why commentary that is 100% accurate cannot be included, especially when the accurate commentary comes from a more notable source. I am fairly sure that Siegan will not be remembered by History even to the small extent that Withers is remembered. Thus Withers is likely more notable then Siegan. Referencing Craig v Missouri as an indication of the prevailing US legal opinion prior to the legal tender cases would improve the article and I have no abjection. You may also wish to consider adding in Withers comment that making gold and silver coin a tender was a reserved state power and not a shared power. This opinion shows up prominently in "CATO" ON CONSTITUTIONAL "MONEY" AND LEGAL TENDER. As show by the comment from Jefferson already referenced, it was not a uncommon opinion. 4.156.27.116 (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC) You say that the position of Jefferson is being treated as a "personal" opinion and not a comment on the Constitutional Convention. Is there any reliable source between the Civil War and 2008 that treats the position of Jefferson and Withers as a comment on the Constitutional Convention, rather than as a "personal" opinion? If so, then maybe we can cite it here in this article. Incidentally, Siegan has been cited by the Supreme Court, whereas I'm not aware that Withers has. Anyway, I hope you don't think I'm being stubborn here. It just seems to me that the article is in pretty good shape, and the material about Jefferson at least comes close to what you're seeking. This is just an encyclopedia article rather than a treatise, so how about this: we can include an external link in the "External links" section to the material by Withers. Okay?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC) I would like to see Withers treated fairly compared to Siegan. Siegan has his position shown next to his link and if the following is shown next to the link for Withers I would say the treatment is fair, as the position of both parties is shown. It is now established, upon a foundation impregnable, that deliberately, on specific motion, and by ayes and noes, the Convention, overruling its committee, denied to Congress the power to emit "bills of credit," or to authorize the States to make a paper issue a legal tender, but explicitly and rigidly confined the former to the power to "coin money"--that is, to make specie, to render it current, at a regulated value, and the States to that, and that only, as a legal tender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.27.112 (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Is there a problem? 4.156.27.154 (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC) One of the footnotes says: "Bernard H. Siegan. The Supreme Court's Constitution, (1987), page 27: 'Because the power was not banned, Congress could print paper money and designate it legal tender under its necessary and proper power (article I, section 8, clause 18) once the required relationship to an enumerated power had been established.'" We could add the material to that footnote about Withers. Okay? It would be nice to wrap this up. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Above you said you would add Wither to the external links. I am OK with that a long as he gets equal time to Siegan. Siegan views are shown and equal time means Withers views also need to be shown. Is there a problem doing this? 4.156.252.141 (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Usually the "external links" is for links that aren't otherwise mentioned in the article. I have inserted a long quote from Withers into one of the footnotes, with a link to Withers, and therefore it would not be appropriate to also put Withers in the external links.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC) The addition looks good! I have no complaints. 4.156.252.238 (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Necessary and proper clause I do have an issue with the Supreme Courts use of the necessary and proper clause when ruling on this issue. I recently reread the clause and noticed the word "Execution". The complete text of that clause shows that it states that Congress has the power to make laws that are "necessary and proper for the Execution" of the powers enumerated. Notice that "Execution" is capitalized and is therefore the important part of this clause. In my mind printing money means that you don't have to borrow it and thus is CONTRARY to the "Execution" of the power to borrow. Also the power "to Coin" and the power to establish the "value of coin" has been hindered by the printing of money and and not helped. A check of my pocket shows no silver and gold coins minted using the power "to Coin". Paper money has resulted in the extinction in the use of these powers, other then for occasional bullion coins issued by the US Mint. Paper money has thus hindered the "Execution" of all the powers that were cited as supporting factors by the Supreme Court and the necessary and proper clause has been misused. I now think that the Supreme Court was in error in EVERY factor it considered in making the ruling but I doubt that any reference can be found citing such a view. 4.156.252.238 (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC) What did you expect? They are only human. It is beyond the scope of this incylopedia to question the actions of the court. --2ndAmendment (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Incomprehensible

I just wanted to make a note that the preceding discussion on this talk page is almost incomprehensible. At any rate, it's worth emphasizing to anyone who comes along: this page is about the Legal Tender Cases. These are controversies that were decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. This article is about that decision. It is not about whether you think it is the right or wrong decision. That would be advocacy; the encyclopedia is only here to note things as they are, not how you feel they should be. If you want to get into a debate about whether the Supreme Court properly interpreted the relevant controlling law, please note that debate at the article for that portion of the Constitution, or perhaps the articles about money in the United States, or one of the myriad other locations that an NPOV notation of the opposing view would be relevant and helpful. MrArticleOne (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion by a single-purpose editor with multiple IPs blocked for disruption and personal attacks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Heres a few pointers to make it more comprehensible Under the Articles of Confederation (the pre Constitution government) the printing of paper money was a shared power. Both Congress and the various states could print money. Early drafts of the US Constitution included language that kept language from the Articles of Confederation listing the printing of paper money as a power of Congress. During the debates on drafting the Constitution a vote of 9 to 2 removed the language allowing this power. When you consider that this lopsided vote took place with such disparaging comments of this power as to equate it with th Beast of Revelation in the Bible and a comment that it would be best to abandon the project (the drafting of the US Constitution) then allowing this language to remain, this vote was not just a removal of the language, but constituted a STRIPPING of that power from Congress. The 10th Amendment reserves a certain set of powers "not prohibited to the states" as "reserved to the states". The power to make gold a silver coin legal tender is arguably the ONLY such "not prohibited" power in the whole US Constitution. In the legal tender cases there is no record AT ALL that the Supreme Court was aware of the vote stripping this power from Congress took place. Also the majority of the Supreme Court judges were of the opinion that Congress could make gold and silver coin legal tender and considered this a shared power and not a "power reserved to the states". There is no record of any sort of debate on whether the 10th Amendment made this a reserved state power. The Supreme Court ruling was made extending an assumed power to make gold and silver coin legal tender when in fact this power is a "reserved state power" per the 10th Amendment and not a Congressional power. Another issue is that a quote by Nathanial Gorham was taken to mean he was in favor of the power to print money, and this interpretation was used in the Supreme Court rulings, when an examination of the dialogue shows he was speaking in favor of the power to borrow money and not the power to print it. What is strange is that this quote actually took place during the debate on the 9-2 vote to strip this power from Congress, that the Supreme Court used the wrong interpretation of this quote, and there is no record that the Supremes were aware that this quote was during a vote to strip the power to print paper money from Congress. Following is the complete debate, as recorded by James Madison, on that 9-2 vote stripping the power to print paper money aka bills of credit from Congress. Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless. Mr. BUTLER, 2ds. the motion. Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best. Mr. Govr. MORRIS. striking out the words will leave room still for notes of a responsible minister which will do all the good without the mischief. The Monied interest will oppose the plan of Government, if paper emissions be not prohibited. Mr. GHORUM was for striking out, without inserting any prohibition. if the words stand they may suggest and lead to the measure. Col. [FN20] MASON had doubts on the subject. Congs. he thought would not have the power unless it were expressed. Though he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet as he could not foresee all emergences, he was unwilling to tie the hands of the Legislature. He observed that the late war could not have been carried on, had such a prohibition existed. Mr. GHORUM. The power as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing. Mr. MERCER was a friend to paper money, though in the present state & temper of America, he should neither propose nor approve of such a measure. He was consequently opposed to a prohibition of it altogether. It will stamp suspicion on the Government to deny it a discretion on this point. It was impolitic also to excite the opposition of all those who were friends to paper money. The people of property would be sure to be on the side of the plan, and it was impolitic to purchase their further attachment with the loss of the opposite class of Citizens Mr. ELSEWORTH thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By witholding the power from the new Governt. more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else. Paper money can in no case be necessary. Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good. Mr. RANDOLPH, notwithstanding his antipathy to paper money, could not agree to strike out the words, as he could not foresee all the occasions which [FN21] might arise. Mr. WILSON. It will have a most salutary influence on the credit of the U. States to remove the possibility of paper money. This expedient can never succeed whilst its mischiefs are remembered, and as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources. Mr. BUTLER. remarked that paper was a legal tender in no Country in Europe. He was urgent for disarming the Government of such a power. Mr. MASON was still averse to tying the hands of the Legislature altogether. If there was no example in Europe as just remarked, it might be observed on the other side, that there was none in which the Government was restrained on this head. Mr. READ, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations. Mr. LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words "(and emit bills") On the motion for striking out N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN22] 4.154.232.160 (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)