|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 15, 2014 23:43:57 GMT
Again, it is evident that you believe that the imbalance between the federal government's annual income and its annual expenditures is a matter of insufficient taxation--especially upon The (Hated!) Rich. I would beg to differ. The best way to stop inflation, in my opinion--in fact, probably the only way--would be to return to the gold standard, which was largely abandoned by FDR, and then entirely jetissoned by Richard Nixon. And I would certainly favor this; although I am not very optimistic about its being accomplished. As for your analogy as concerning the ARM: The fact is that these autopilot increases could be very quickly reversed by Congress, if it wished to do so. But members of both major parties tend to be averse to root-canal economics--it is just not the best way to get elected or re-elected--and Democrats suffer from the additional problem of actually liking lots of government spending. So I do not expect it to happen within the foreseeable future.
Why is there an assumption that calling for "fair taxation" reflects hatred of the rich? In 2011 Mitt Romney paid a federal tax rate about a 14% on over $22 million in income and I paid about a 28% federal tax rate on about 1/200th of that amount of income. I don't "hate" Mitt Romney or his income but I do believe he should be paying at least the same rate of taxation on his income that I have to pay instead of paying about 1/2 of what I pay.
You've read my proposal for federal and it imposes "fair taxation" that would fully fund the authorized expenditures of government.
In truth the "gold standard" still exists under the Constitution and laws of the United States. The problem is that Congress refuses to enforce the laws. The law that isn't being enforced is Title 12 › Chapter 3 › Subchapter XII › § 411.
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411
Under the laws of the United States a Federal Reserve note is an "on demand promissory note" redeemable in species coinage being produced by the US Mint.
There's only one problem related to enforcement of this law by the government is that the US government doesn't have the bullion necessary to "coin (the) money" required to redeem outstanding Federal Reserve notes but this can be easily rectified by Congress.
The "lawful money" of the United States is currently American Eagle gold, platinum, and silver coins being produced by the US Mint based upon The Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985 that re-valued the coinage of the United States in accordance with Article I Section 8 Clause 4 ("To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof"). The "problem" is that the "value of the coinage" if all of the reserve bullion of the United States was "coined into lawful money" is far less than the debt of the United States that is represented by Federal Reserve (on demand "promissory") notes subject to redemption under Title 12.
The solution to the problem is relatively simply. Congress can "re-value" to coinage (lawful money) of the United States so that the US Treasury has enough gold, platinum, and silver bullion to redeem Federal Reserve notes on demand. Based upon the US gold reserves and the national debt that the US government is responsible for redeeming I calculated that the new "value of money" would have to be based upon $5000/oz of gold as opposed to the current $50/oz of gold established by the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985.
Simple solution: Re-value the "lawful money" coinage and then enforce Title 12 where a person can redeem Federal Reserve notes in "New American Eagle" coinage where $5,000 in Federal Reserve notes will be redeemed with a $5,000 "New American Eagle" coin containing one ounce of pure gold. Of course with the "market value" of gold being about $1,200/oz currently I wouldn't anticipate a rush on redemption in US gold coinage but it does reset the value mathmatically so that the government could redeem the national debt in gold coinage.
PS The Federal Reserve has issued more "Federal Reserve notes" that what the US government is required to redeem and it would be the responsibility of the Federal Reserve to come up with the US Gold Coinage to redeem those additional Federal Reserve Notes.
Whereas I very much like your idea of our upgrading, substantially, the value of gold from its $50-an-ounce standard, I am not sure that it would be a good idea to place that value at more than four times its current market value. It seems reasonable enough--to me, at least--to request that the monied class should pay the same rate in taxes as the rest of us do. But to accomplish that by merely increasing taxes upon the wealthy, without offsetting tax decreases upon the rest of American society, strikes me as being a bit churlish--as part and parcel of a punish-the-rich mindset. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 16, 2014 11:12:08 GMT
To speak broadly of "non-citizen (permanent) residents of the United States" is surely to confuse illegals--who may, indeed, be "permanent" residents of the US --with legal residents actively seeking American citizenship. And to assert that any immigration quotas violate some fundamental human right is to claim that a nation should have no right to protect itself against being overwhelmed. (If Americans emigrated to Mexico in roughly the same numbers that Mexicans come to the US, this would really not be much of a problem, from a practical perspective. But when many times as many Mexicans come to live in the US as vice-versa, it should be obvious that our country cannot forever sustain such numbers.)
The "Law of Supply and Demand" ensures that the nation will not be "overwhelmed" by open immigration. In 2008, for example, roughly 1 million immigrant construction workers left the United States and returned to Mexico when the housing market collapsed. When there is work they come and when there is no work they leave. As long as we have jobs they will come and when we don't have jobs they won't come. We cannot be "overwhelmed" by peaceful immigration for the purpose of gainful employment.
When it comes to "illegal" immigrants I will once again point out the all people have an Inalienable Right of Liberty and while that Right is not enumerated in the US Constitution it is certainly established by legal precedent in the United States. The "quota" system violates the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the "person" (that applies to every person) and the "quota" immigration laws are arguably a violation of the 9th Amendment. A person cannot be considered to be in violation of an unconstitutional law and Supreme Court decisions reflect this fact. When the Supreme Court declares a law "unconstitutional" it does not remove the law but instead simply makes the law unenforcable. The person cannot be prosecuted even though they violate the law once it is rendered unenforceable by a Supreme Court decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 16, 2014 11:56:56 GMT
Whereas I very much like your idea of our upgrading, substantially, the value of gold from its $50-an-ounce standard, I am not sure that it would be a good idea to place that value at more than four times its current market value. It seems reasonable enough--to me, at least--to request that the monied class should pay the same rate in taxes as the rest of us do. But to accomplish that by merely increasing taxes upon the wealthy, without offsetting tax decreases upon the rest of American society, strikes me as being a bit churlish--as part and parcel of a punish-the-rich mindset.
The Gold Standard:
The "denominational value" of an ounce of gold has nothing to do with the "market rate" between an ounce of gold and the discounted value of a Federal Reserve note. Remember that under the law today a $50 Federal Reserve note and a $50 American Gold Eagle are idenitical. The Federal Reserve note, under the law I provided, is nothing more than an on demand promissory note redeemable for a $50 American Gold Eagle coin (but the law requiring redemption on demand is not enforced).
The US has 8,972.6 metric tonnes in our gold reserve which equals 288,475,792 troy ounces and we have roughly a $17 trillion national debt that the US Treasury is obligated to redeem in gold coinage but fortunately not all of the national debt is in "on demand" promissory notes. There's only about $1 trillion in actual in "on demand" Federal Reserve notes in circulation and that is what the US Treasury has to cover with gold coinage. Technically the "value" of an ounce of gold could be about $3,500 and I did "round up" to $5,000 to cover the future possibility that more "money in circulation" could be required if people stored their "labor" in gold coinage as opposed to in bank accounts or other financial instruments.
Of note if we actually had to cover the entire national debt with gold coinage the value of an ounce of gold would be about $60,000 if I recall correctly.
Fair Taxation:
Please note that my Federal Tax Proposal does exactly what you insist upon. It creates "fair taxation" by treating all dollars of income the same under the tax codes regardless of source or who receives the income and it eliminates all individual deductions and tax credits replacing them with an "exemption" applicable to all households and then a single tax rate above the exemption level where the rate is based upon the authorized expenditures of government. It is "fair taxation" for rich and poor alike, does not "redistribute" income with tax credits, and it is fiscally responsible because it eliminates deficit spending completely.
What is perhaps surprising is that I was able to come up with a rather simple federal tax proposal that is completely fair for everyone from the lowest paid worker to the highest income investor and that proposal balances the US budget when our elected members of Congress haven't been able to do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 16, 2014 23:05:14 GMT
To speak broadly of "non-citizen (permanent) residents of the United States" is surely to confuse illegals--who may, indeed, be "permanent" residents of the US --with legal residents actively seeking American citizenship. And to assert that any immigration quotas violate some fundamental human right is to claim that a nation should have no right to protect itself against being overwhelmed. (If Americans emigrated to Mexico in roughly the same numbers that Mexicans come to the US, this would really not be much of a problem, from a practical perspective. But when many times as many Mexicans come to live in the US as vice-versa, it should be obvious that our country cannot forever sustain such numbers.)
The "Law of Supply and Demand" ensures that the nation will not be "overwhelmed" by open immigration. In 2008, for example, roughly 1 million immigrant construction workers left the United States and returned to Mexico when the housing market collapsed. When there is work they come and when there is no work they leave. As long as we have jobs they will come and when we don't have jobs they won't come. We cannot be "overwhelmed" by peaceful immigration for the purpose of gainful employment.
When it comes to "illegal" immigrants I will once again point out the all people have an Inalienable Right of Liberty and while that Right is not enumerated in the US Constitution it is certainly established by legal precedent in the United States. The "quota" system violates the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the "person" (that applies to every person) and the "quota" immigration laws are arguably a violation of the 9th Amendment. A person cannot be considered to be in violation of an unconstitutional law and Supreme Court decisions reflect this fact. When the Supreme Court declares a law "unconstitutional" it does not remove the law but instead simply makes the law unenforcable. The person cannot be prosecuted even though they violate the law once it is rendered unenforceable by a Supreme Court decision.
Those Mexicans coming to the US are taking jobs (such as the "construction" jobs that you mentioned) that would have otherwise been available to Americans; and this is simply unsustainable, unless we wish to live with European-style levels of unemployment. And when, exactly, has the SCOTUS declared all immigration quotas to be unconstitutional? |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 16, 2014 23:13:27 GMT
Whereas I very much like your idea of our upgrading, substantially, the value of gold from its $50-an-ounce standard, I am not sure that it would be a good idea to place that value at more than four times its current market value. It seems reasonable enough--to me, at least--to request that the monied class should pay the same rate in taxes as the rest of us do. But to accomplish that by merely increasing taxes upon the wealthy, without offsetting tax decreases upon the rest of American society, strikes me as being a bit churlish--as part and parcel of a punish-the-rich mindset.
The Gold Standard:
The "denominational value" of an ounce of gold has nothing to do with the "market rate" between an ounce of gold and the discounted value of a Federal Reserve note. Remember that under the law today a $50 Federal Reserve note and a $50 American Gold Eagle are idenitical. The Federal Reserve note, under the law I provided, is nothing more than an on demand promissory note redeemable for a $50 American Gold Eagle coin (but the law requiring redemption on demand is not enforced).
The US has 8,972.6 metric tonnes in our gold reserve which equals 288,475,792 troy ounces and we have roughly a $17 trillion national debt that the US Treasury is obligated to redeem in gold coinage but fortunately not all of the national debt is in "on demand" promissory notes. There's only about $1 trillion in actual in "on demand" Federal Reserve notes in circulation and that is what the US Treasury has to cover with gold coinage. Technically the "value" of an ounce of gold could be about $3,500 and I did "round up" to $5,000 to cover the future possibility that more "money in circulation" could be required if people stored their "labor" in gold coinage as opposed to in bank accounts or other financial instruments.
Of note if we actually had to cover the entire national debt with gold coinage the value of an ounce of gold would be about $60,000 if I recall correctly.
Fair Taxation:
Please note that my Federal Tax Proposal does exactly what you insist upon. It creates "fair taxation" by treating all dollars of income the same under the tax codes regardless of source or who receives the income and it eliminates all individual deductions and tax credits replacing them with an "exemption" applicable to all households and then a single tax rate above the exemption level where the rate is based upon the authorized expenditures of government. It is "fair taxation" for rich and poor alike, does not "redistribute" income with tax credits, and it is fiscally responsible because it eliminates deficit spending completely.
What is perhaps surprising is that I was able to come up with a rather simple federal tax proposal that is completely fair for everyone from the lowest paid worker to the highest income investor and that proposal balances the US budget when our elected members of Congress haven't been able to do that.
Your tax proposal rather impresses me. Nonetheless, I seriously doubt that anything even remotely approaching it will ever be enacted. That is because politicians (of both major parties) have a symbiotic relationship with various vested interests: By gifting these interest groups with preferential treatment, under the tax code, these politicians may be assured of future endorsements and--more importantly--significant campaign contributions. A fair tax would militate against that dynamic. And it seems, to me, reasonable to set the value of gold at the market rate--not at some (arbitrary) rate, instead. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 17, 2014 10:52:17 GMT
Those Mexicans coming to the US are taking jobs (such as the "construction" jobs that you mentioned) that would have otherwise been available to Americans; and this is simply unsustainable, unless we wish to live with European-style levels of unemployment. And when, exactly, has the SCOTUS declared all immigration quotas to be unconstitutional?
The fact is that the "Mexicans" were not talking jobs that "Americans" would have filled. New home construction has returned but there are about 1 million job openings (the last time I had a statistic on it) that "Americans" aren't filling today and the "Mexicans" that returned to Mexico have yet to come back to the United States to fill those job openings. Based just upon statistics for H2B immigrants (temporary work visas unrelated to agriculture) the failure to fill those job openings results in over 4 million other jobs not being created for Americans. Of course if these construction workers were granted permanent immigration status then the 4 million other jobs created for Americans would be permanent as well.
Are you opposed to the creation of 4 million more jobs for Americans that statistical analysis establishes would occur if we allowed 1 million Mexican construction workers into the United States?
The SCOTUS has not declared the immigration laws unconsitutional but my argument is that the immigration quota laws do violate the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person to immigrate that Thomas Jefferson, as well as other founders of America, stated existed. I would state that there are compelling arguments that could be presented before the US Supreme Court that the immigration quotas do violated the 9th Amendment and not that those arguments have been presented.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 17, 2014 11:10:09 GMT
Your tax proposal rather impresses me. Nonetheless, I seriously doubt that anything even remotely approaching it will ever be enacted. That is because politicians (of both major parties) have a symbiotic relationship with various vested interests: By gifting these interest groups with preferential treatment, under the tax code, these politicians may be assured of future endorsements and--more importantly--significant campaign contributions. A fair tax would militate against that dynamic. And it seems, to me, reasonable to set the value of gold at the market rate--not at some (arbitrary) rate, instead.
I do not disagree with the opinion that the politicans, for nefarious political reasons, don't want fair taxation in the United States.
Actually it's the "market rate" for gold that is arbitrary.
A Federal Reserve note is a promissory note (as established by law) and all "promissory notes" are discounted when traded on the free market. The "discount" is based upon the opinion of the person obtaining the note in their ability to redeem the note for what the note promises.
For example:
A secured "mortgage" note was typically discounted by about 5% when traded between banks. Because it's a "secured" note the person (bank) receiving the note had a fairly high expectation of the "promise of the note" being fulfilled. That has probably gone down since the mortgage crisis but historically the discount was about 5% on a mortgage note.
An unsecured "note" such as a credit card debt note was discounted far more and typically trades at about 50% of the value of the note. That is because the likelihood of redeeming the note was far less than for a "secured" note such as a mortgage.
Federal Reserve notes "promise" redemption in American Gold Eagle coins but we can't redeem them at a Federal Reserve bank or at the US Treasury in accordance with the law. Because our government refuses to enforce the law the "discount" rate for a Federal Reserve note is about 97% on the free market today and that is the "exchange rate" that we see reflected by the "price of gold" and it is arbitrary based upon the "belief of the person in being able to redeem the note" for what the note promises. A $50 Federal Reserve note = a $50 American Gold Eagle (containing 1oz of gold) but the current "preceived odds" of ever colleting that are basically 33:1 which is why the exchange rate is what it is. The "odds of redemption" are subjective and always have been.
Simply remember that, if tomorrow, the US government enforced the law where the Federal Reserve and US Treasury began to redeem $50 Federal Reserve notes with a $50 American Gold Eagle the "market value" of gold would be $50/oz.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 17, 2014 23:41:26 GMT
Those Mexicans coming to the US are taking jobs (such as the "construction" jobs that you mentioned) that would have otherwise been available to Americans; and this is simply unsustainable, unless we wish to live with European-style levels of unemployment. And when, exactly, has the SCOTUS declared all immigration quotas to be unconstitutional?
The fact is that the "Mexicans" were not talking jobs that "Americans" would have filled. New home construction has returned but there are about 1 million job openings (the last time I had a statistic on it) that "Americans" aren't filling today and the "Mexicans" that returned to Mexico have yet to come back to the United States to fill those job openings. Based just upon statistics for H2B immigrants (temporary work visas unrelated to agriculture) the failure to fill those job openings results in over 4 million other jobs not being created for Americans. Of course if these construction workers were granted permanent immigration status then the 4 million other jobs created for Americans would be permanent as well.
Are you opposed to the creation of 4 million more jobs for Americans that statistical analysis establishes would occur if we allowed 1 million Mexican construction workers into the United States?
The SCOTUS has not declared the immigration laws unconsitutional but my argument is that the immigration quota laws do violate the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person to immigrate that Thomas Jefferson, as well as other founders of America, stated existed. I would state that there are compelling arguments that could be presented before the US Supreme Court that the immigration quotas do violated the 9th Amendment and not that those arguments have been presented.
What I remain "opposed" to is the flouting of our laws. (If the Congress wishes to create a guest-worker program, I would be all for it.) As for Americans' (alleged) unwillingness to do construction work: When I was a twentysomething--somewhwere back in the Bronze Age, I believe--my best friend (who attended college during the majority of the year) did construction work in the summer. He certainly did not consider himself to be "above" it. Have things really changed that much since the 1970s, in this regard? |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 17, 2014 23:47:21 GMT
Your tax proposal rather impresses me. Nonetheless, I seriously doubt that anything even remotely approaching it will ever be enacted. That is because politicians (of both major parties) have a symbiotic relationship with various vested interests: By gifting these interest groups with preferential treatment, under the tax code, these politicians may be assured of future endorsements and--more importantly--significant campaign contributions. A fair tax would militate against that dynamic. And it seems, to me, reasonable to set the value of gold at the market rate--not at some (arbitrary) rate, instead.
I do not disagree with the opinion that the politicans, for nefarious political reasons, don't want fair taxation in the United States.
Actually it's the "market rate" for gold that is arbitrary.
A Federal Reserve note is a promissory note (as established by law) and all "promissory notes" are discounted when traded on the free market. The "discount" is based upon the opinion of the person obtaining the note in their ability to redeem the note for what the note promises.
For example:
A secured "mortgage" note was typically discounted by about 5% when traded between banks. Because it's a "secured" note the person (bank) receiving the note had a fairly high expectation of the "promise of the note" being fulfilled. That has probably gone down since the mortgage crisis but historically the discount was about 5% on a mortgage note.
An unsecured "note" such as a credit card debt note was discounted far more and typically trades at about 50% of the value of the note. That is because the likelihood of redeeming the note was far less than for a "secured" note such as a mortgage.
Federal Reserve notes "promise" redemption in American Gold Eagle coins but we can't redeem them at a Federal Reserve bank or at the US Treasury in accordance with the law. Because our government refuses to enforce the law the "discount" rate for a Federal Reserve note is about 97% on the free market today and that is the "exchange rate" that we see reflected by the "price of gold" and it is arbitrary based upon the "belief of the person in being able to redeem the note" for what the note promises. A $50 Federal Reserve note = a $50 American Gold Eagle (containing 1oz of gold) but the current "preceived odds" of ever colleting that are basically 33:1 which is why the exchange rate is what it is. The "odds of redemption" are subjective and always have been.
Simply remember that, if tomorrow, the US government enforced the law where the Federal Reserve and US Treasury began to redeem $50 Federal Reserve notes with a $50 American Gold Eagle the "market value" of gold would be $50/oz.
But until (and unless) all $50 Federal Reserve Notes are actually redeemed for an American Gold Eagle coin--and that possibility seems quite remote--why should the price of gold be set at just $50 an ounce? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 18, 2014 12:35:15 GMT
But until (and unless) all $50 Federal Reserve Notes are actually redeemed for an American Gold Eagle coin--and that possibility seems quite remote--why should the price of gold be set at just $50 an ounce?
Technically, under the law, one ounce of Gold does equal $50 and its the $50 Federal Reserve note (FRN) that doesn't equal $50 because the FRN can't be redeemed for a $50 American Eagle Gold Coin. When a "dollar" is referred to under the law it relates to "Lawful Money" and not to promissory notes that are redeemable in lawful money.
By way of analogy which establishes "value" if we look at an automobile. Does the "automobile" establish the value or does the "title" to the automobile establish value? It is the physical object that establishes value an not a "note" of ownership that establishes the value.
Had the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury had been following the law (Title 31 › Subtitle IV › Chapter 51 › Subchapter II › § 5119) then the purchasing power of Federal Reserve notes and American Eagle coins would be the same. Remember that according to the IRS both are identical in value. A Federal Reserve note is "legal tender" but it is not "lawful money" (reference Juilliard v Greenman) and there is a significant difference between the two.
Because the IRS and the federal government have not followed the laws and Constitution of the United States we have the situation where Federal Reserve notes and American Eagle coins are not fully interchangeable as currency in our economy although the law establishes that they should be. The only way to resolve the problem that the failure of compliance with the law has created is to "revalue" to species coinage of the United States so the "denominational value" of an ounce of gold is NOT $50/oz as authorized by Article I Section 8 Clause 4.
As I've noted if we address this pragmatically then one ounce of gold probably needs to be worth $5,000 to "balance" the books so that both Federal Reserve notes and US Coinage can both be used in our economy for economic transactions. In short by correcting the "value of the coinage" we can return to a functional "gold standard" where we have a stable monetary system. To fix the problem of non-compliance with the law the value of an ounce of gold must the re-established based upon Article I Section 8 Clause 4.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 18, 2014 13:08:23 GMT
What I remain "opposed" to is the flouting of our laws. (If the Congress wishes to create a guest-worker program, I would be all for it.) As for Americans' (alleged) unwillingness to do construction work: When I was a twentysomething--somewhwere back in the Bronze Age, I believe--my best friend (who attended college during the majority of the year) did construction work in the summer. He certainly did not consider himself to be "above" it. Have things really changed that much since the 1970s, in this regard?
You have expressed the position that you believe in "Original Intent" as well as the limited powers of the Federal government based upon "enumeration" in the US Constitution.
No where in the US Constitution does it authorize the Congress to limit immigration and the founders were adament that People had a Right to Immigrate to the United States for peaceful purposes. Thomas Jefferson went so far as stating that a Person's rights related to immigration were so great that if the laws prohibited it, even if the law was imposed by 100% of those in authority, the Person had the Right to Violate the Law.
Like you I found myself facing a simple problem. The law (quota system) was not based upon enumeration in the US Constitution which delegated no authority to Congress to prohibit immigration for peaceful purposes. This law also violated an Inalienable Right of the Person that the founders supported and that Jefferson went so far as stating a person had the Right to Violate a law that prohibited immigration.
Ultimately I came to the conclusion that first the law needed to be changed and then those that, according to Jefferson, had exercised their Inalienable Rights should not be penalized for their actions in violating an unjust law existed.
By analogy it's really no different than US citizens that violated the Selective Service laws (i.e. the draft) during the Vietnam War by fleeing to Canada that were granted amnesty once the draft was repealed.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 18, 2014 20:48:39 GMT
But until (and unless) all $50 Federal Reserve Notes are actually redeemed for an American Gold Eagle coin--and that possibility seems quite remote--why should the price of gold be set at just $50 an ounce?
Technically, under the law, one ounce of Gold does equal $50 and its the $50 Federal Reserve note (FRN) that doesn't equal $50 because the FRN can't be redeemed for a $50 American Eagle Gold Coin. When a "dollar" is referred to under the law it relates to "Lawful Money" and not to promissory notes that are redeemable in lawful money.
By way of analogy which establishes "value" if we look at an automobile. Does the "automobile" establish the value or does the "title" to the automobile establish value? It is the physical object that establishes value an not a "note" of ownership that establishes the value.
Had the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury had been following the law (Title 31 › Subtitle IV › Chapter 51 › Subchapter II › § 5119) then the purchasing power of Federal Reserve notes and American Eagle coins would be the same. Remember that according to the IRS both are identical in value. A Federal Reserve note is "legal tender" but it is not "lawful money" (reference Juilliard v Greenman) and there is a significant difference between the two.
Because the IRS and the federal government have not followed the laws and Constitution of the United States we have the situation where Federal Reserve notes and American Eagle coins are not fully interchangeable as currency in our economy although the law establishes that they should be. The only way to resolve the problem that the failure of compliance with the law has created is to "revalue" to species coinage of the United States so the "denominational value" of an ounce of gold is NOT $50/oz as authorized by Article I Section 8 Clause 4.
As I've noted if we address this pragmatically then one ounce of gold probably needs to be worth $5,000 to "balance" the books so that both Federal Reserve notes and US Coinage can both be used in our economy for economic transactions. In short by correcting the "value of the coinage" we can return to a functional "gold standard" where we have a stable monetary system. To fix the problem of non-compliance with the law the value of an ounce of gold must the re-established based upon Article I Section 8 Clause 4.
What, in your opinion, is the difference between "legal tender" and "lawful money"? (It sounds very much like the difference, say, between a big car and a large automobile.) |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 18, 2014 20:54:46 GMT
What I remain "opposed" to is the flouting of our laws. (If the Congress wishes to create a guest-worker program, I would be all for it.) As for Americans' (alleged) unwillingness to do construction work: When I was a twentysomething--somewhwere back in the Bronze Age, I believe--my best friend (who attended college during the majority of the year) did construction work in the summer. He certainly did not consider himself to be "above" it. Have things really changed that much since the 1970s, in this regard?
You have expressed the position that you believe in "Original Intent" as well as the limited powers of the Federal government based upon "enumeration" in the US Constitution.
No where in the US Constitution does it authorize the Congress to limit immigration and the founders were adament that People had a Right to Immigrate to the United States for peaceful purposes. Thomas Jefferson went so far as stating that a Person's rights related to immigration were so great that if the laws prohibited it, even if the law was imposed by 100% of those in authority, the Person had the Right to Violate the Law.
Like you I found myself facing a simple problem. The law (quota system) was not based upon enumeration in the US Constitution which delegated no authority to Congress to prohibit immigration for peaceful purposes. This law also violated an Inalienable Right of the Person that the founders supported and that Jefferson went so far as stating a person had the Right to Violate a law that prohibited immigration.
Ultimately I came to the conclusion that first the law needed to be changed and then those that, according to Jefferson, had exercised their Inalienable Rights should not be penalized for their actions in violating an unjust law existed.
By analogy it's really no different than US citizens that violated the Selective Service laws (i.e. the draft) during the Vietnam War by fleeing to Canada that were granted amnesty once the draft was repealed.
Although prudential considerations may arise, I do not believe that it was a good thing, as a matter of principle, to have granted amnesty to those who evaded the draft by fleeing to Canada. (Just as I do not believe in the principle of ex post facto laws--laws created to criminalize behavior that had been legal at the time that it occurred--neither do I believe in legalizing actions retroactively.) The US Constitution may not "authorize" immigration quotas being enacted by Congress; but it certainly does not prohibit these, either. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 19, 2014 11:09:04 GMT
What, in your opinion, is the difference between "legal tender" and "lawful money"? (It sounds very much like the difference, say, between a big car and a large automobile.)
Legal tender includes both species coinage (coined lawful money) and promissory (Federal Reserve) notes that the laws of the nation require the people to accept both as legal tender currency of the United States. You cannot, under the law, refuse to accept payment in American Eagle coins if someone is crazy enough and wants to pay a debt to you in American Eagle coinage.
The real difference is between "money" and a "promise of payment in money" when we address legal tender of the United States. Both the "promise of payment in money" and the actual "money" can be "legal tender" under the law.
The government cannot "create" money and has no authorization or ability to "create" money as money is simply a commodity generally accepted for exchange to facilitate the barter system. Gold, silver, and copper are traditionally forms of "money" historically as they have proven to be the best commodity to use to facilitate the barter system.
Under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 the Congress is authorized to "coin money" and the "coining process" is the taking of metal (gold, silver, copper historically) and manufacturing certified tokens containing a specific amount of the metal (money). The laws then can require people to accept this "coined money" as a medium of exchange and that makes it "legal tender money" for the nation. For example a Canadian Gold Maple Leaf is "coined money" but it is not "legal tender" in the United States.
Article I Section 8 Clause 1 authorized the Congress to borrow on the credit of the United States and it can, based upon the Supreme Court decision on Juillard v Greenman, issue "promissory notes" based upon this authority and can, under the law, require acceptance of these notes as a medium of exchange and that makes them "legal tender" of the United States. The "promissory note" is redeemable in the "lawful legal tender money" of the United States under the US Constitution.
We can also note that nothing in the US Constitution limits the People from using "money" that is not legal tender and that has happened during the history of the United States. For example during to California Gold Rush there wasn't enough "lawful legal tender money" (i.e. US coinage) so gold dust and nuggets were used more often than gold coins that were in short supply. The "gold" was the money and it was freely used as a medium of exchange in commerce. When the United States was founded the general "money" being used was Spanish coinage that was not "legal tender money" in the United States but it was still money.
Of note since 1977 the "gold clause" can once again be imposed by contract. If, by way of example, you were an employer and I could get you to agree I would gladly work for you at $7.25/hr in American Gold Eagle coinage as it would equate to $174/hr in purchasing power at $1,200/oz (i.e. $50 Gold Eagle worth $1,200 in Federal Reserve notes divided by 50 for the "dollar amount" and multipled by $7.25 to obtain "per hour" purchasing power in Federal Reserve notes). An enterprise can also purchase a "commodity" in Federal Reserve notes and sell it at a loss in American Gold Eagles. As you can imagine there can be huge tax advantages to that. For example I can purchase a new Mercedes in gold Eagles and based upon the "exchange rate" I'd only pay $2,500 (in gold coinage) for a $60,000 Mercedes. I'd only have to pay sales tax on the $1,200 I paid and the dealer would report a loss on the sale because the car probably cost them about $50,000 but they only sold it for $1,200.
Additionally if a person purchase American Gold Eagles with Federal Reserve notes they can report it as a "loss" on their income taxes (according to a discussion I had with the IRS). Of course if you then sell the American Gold Eagle you have to claim the "income" from the sale as it's a two-way street. According to the IRS a $50 Federal Reserve note and a $50 American Eagle are identical from an accounting standpoint.
In the end though I'd highly recommend reading the Supreme Court decision in Juillard v Greenman because it lays out extensive arguments and considerations related to "lawful money" and "legal tender" and it is really the Constitutional precedent that our Congress and government are ignoring today.
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=110&page=421
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 19, 2014 11:34:52 GMT
Although prudential considerations may arise, I do not believe that it was a good thing, as a matter of principle, to have granted amnesty to those who evaded the draft by fleeing to Canada. (Just as I do not believe in the principle of ex post facto laws--laws created to criminalize behavior that had been legal at the time that it occurred--neither do I believe in legalizing actions retroactively.) The US Constitution may not "authorize" immigration quotas being enacted by Congress; but it certainly does not prohibit these, either.
Let us look at this by way of example.
We could have a law like one you mentioned in another thread where it's a criminal offense to instigate a person to masturbate. A person is convicted of this offense and sent to prison for ten years but later this year the law is repealed because it's a stupid law. Should the person that's been sentenced to ten years be left to rot in prison or should they be released because the crime they committed in no longer a crime?
We can also note that once a law establishing criminal offense is repealed then a person is no longer prosecuted under the law. If we change the immigration laws to allow lawful immigration without quotas then we cannot prosecute a person that violated to law prior to repeal.
I would once again argue that, according to the founders of American including Washington, Madison and Jeffersion, our "quota system" violates an unenumerated Right of the Person protected by the 9th Amendment. I would also argue that your position is juxataposed to a belief that powers are granted to Congress by enumeration in the Constitution and that the "quota" system violates the 10th Amendments "reserve power to the people" as open immigration is not prohibited by the US Constitution (nor can the States prohibit open immigration). Immigration is both a Right and a Power of the People protected by the 9th and 10th Amendments respectively.
Remember you can't claim to embrace "conservative" Constitutional government and the be a "progressive" in interpeting the powers of the Federal government where such powers are not enumerated. A "conservative" interpretation requires that the "power" be enumerated and in alignment with "original intent" where clearly the founder of America oppose restrictions on immigration for peaceful purposes and did not delegate any authority to Congress in the US Constitution to restrict immigration for peaceful purposes.
|
|
