Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy

[tokeprep]

No it retains provisions to specifically exclude it, which is that paragraph you said you didn't know what I was talking about.

The UCC doesn't say anything about lawful money. The UCC definition of money has nothing to do with the lawful money question we're discussing.

 

[twostrokenut]

I tried to just shrug this one off but:

for the love of all that is good, please stop sounding so ignorant. 31 usc 5115 has not been updated to reflect "all case laws associated with the current wording." it has never been updated to do that because that's not how the code works! The text of 31 usc 5115 is based solely on the statutes that were passed by congress. Reading the statute in the code tells you absolutely nothing about how the courts have interpreted it.

Really that's not how it works? Are you pretending I don't know what the Statutes at Large are and where to find them at the Repository? We know the Code is an ongoing process to make current and easily referencable, the stautes from the Statutes at Large that would be necessary for current applications. Yet your claim is simply that the ones I reference have been allowed to let slide or are a result of poor housekeeping.


The Code would have to be updated to support your theory court cases....as in the ones you are inaccurately citing.... could change or otherwise render it useless now would'n it? You have not claimed Milam and Julliard basically render parts of the code effectively irrelevant?


Sure you have. You have told me 12usc411 and 31usc5115 are useless because of the wording of Milam. You say 31usc5115 means nothing to this issue since Milam doesn't mention it.
You have claimed the US code is not up to date in this thread.
We have both talked about the version of the Code we wish we could afford that does cite the court cases involved does the one we look at on house.gov or Cornell have different text besides the court citations?

 

[tokeprep]

Title 70A, chap3 is not what gives utah the right to use lawful gold and silver as state money that right comes from the Constitution.

I am using utah because they have both things going on right now simultaneously....not lawful paper money but functionally the same for this discussion. My question still is do you think Utah ppl will be paying any taxes with their gold/silver currency or will they use the provisions of the UCC to pay taxes in negotiable fiat instruments?

I never brought that up. You said the UCC wasn't actually the law not realizing that every state had enacted it, and when I told you that was the case, you said I forgot Utah. Utah's having enacted the UCC has nothing to do with gold/silver currency.

Since the UCC is expressly inapplicable to money, no one is going to "use the provisions of the UCC" to pay their taxes in Federal Reserve Notes.

 

[tokeprep]

How so? There is no subsection to this statement, the only purpose for issuance is for reserves, then we borrow to create the expansion, that part isn't in there because we define it through our actions.

You put the words in quotes even though they weren't the text of the statute.

This is merely the authorization to make the notes. The issue of mechanically circulating them is threshed out in other statutes.

I have never disagreed there was a dismissal of Milam's challenge which was to redeem for silver or gold according to Milam's definition of lawful money, court upheld the other definition which is paper notes issued by the US directly, non-negotiable notes.

Court may possibly elaborate on what arms are but may not rule you have no right to bear them, that takes an amendment. Just as court may not redefine lawful money.

The court NEVER said ANYTHING about paper notes issued by the United States directly and it NEVER said ANYTHING about non-negotiable notes. You think otherwise based on the quotation marks around "lawful money" and the fact that Juilliard involved United States Notes.

As I have already previously demonstrated, if we follow your understanding of Juilliard--which is that it applies solely to paper currency with the attributes of United States Note--and believe that's what the court meant with the words it said, the opinion immediately breaks down and stops making sense.

You argue that the court says the power described in Juilliard--which you claim is the power to issue non-negotiable notes, etc., etc.--has been delegated to the Fed under 12 USC 411. This makes absolutely no sense. Obviously you are distorting and misunderstanding what the court said.

then I said

Originally Posted by twostrokenut
The power" is the power to borrow "money" and issue circulating notes for the money borrowed....."the other power" is the power to regulate the value of the notes only!!!! Which were put into circulation by borrowing actual lawful money!!!
Fuckin period dude this was directly from you, you just literally failed to understand what you just quoted!!!





Then you insist it is I that is misunderstanding "The power so precisely described in Juilliard has been delegated to the Federal Reserve System under the provisions of 12 U.S.C. § 411."

then you insist "under the provisions of 12usc411" are functionally irrelevant when in fact it defines the whole discussion and any power you seem to be misunderstanding.

All I'm doing is following the argument you made. You said "the power" is to "put [notes] into circulation by borrowing actual lawful money." If you're right, then the court says in the sentence I keep quoting that the power to put notes in circulation by borrowing actual lawful money has been delegated to the Fed under 12 USC 411. Since 12 USC 411 says nothing about borrowing lawful money, your interpretation makes no sense and the court could not possibly have meant what you keep suggesting.

see that $300 million is actually lingering from the Civil War....that was a shit ton of money back then...that would change of course if elastic currency were redeemed on a large scale....is that going to happen soon? Prolly not....... look how long it is taking for the concept to be acknowledged and how complex it is.

Just one problem, again. Of that $300 million authorized to be issued, most of it is already issued and outstanding--in the hands of collectors who sell the old notes for far, far above face value. You told everyone people do it all the time on eBay.

That $300 million is just $300 million. A dollar is a dollar; the time that's passed is irrelevant. You want to know why the statute says $300 million? Because the treasury hasn't issued United States Notes for more than 40 years, so it's totally irrelevant to them.

 

[tokeprep]

Who is ignoring the reality of the text that was written and who's sentiments actually made it to text? Everyone else who did not have that interest or had it for themselves and not others had to settle for the 3/5ths clause then deal with the irony of what they ratified to their dismay.

So I am just making this up lol right sure.

The "idealized version" you think I just made up is sitting anywhere on the web for anyone to read.

The sentiments of everyone who debated and voted on the text made it into the text. Alas, that "everyone" is a far larger group than the handful of noble individuals you would prefer to finger in favor of dumping the wretched rest.

Really? Where did you read your idealized version then? Because in mine, there are 8 slaves states and only 5 non-slave states, and 25 of 55 delegates from these states actually owned slaves. The "original intent" of this group seems exceedingly obvious to me. But no, you would rather ignore it to highlight something you prefer instead. So be it.

The truth is ugly, and history is an incomparably wretched thing to behold.

 

[tokeprep]

I tried to just shrug this one off but:

• 
  ​
• Really that's not how it works? Well it would have to be to support your theory court case....as in the one you are inaccurately citing.... could change or otherwise render it useless now would'n it. You have not claimed Milam and Julliard basically render parts of the code effectively irrelevant?

Yes, it would have to be, and indeed it is. Court cases "change" the code constantly, and the code is never updated. I already told you this a long time ago in this thread: when a lawyer looks a statute up, they don't look in the government-published code you're looking at. They look at an expensive annotated code that contains summaries of court decisions in addition to the text of the code; they can then look at the decisions for additional information and context. Private companies make billions of dollars every single year doing this, and you're telling us that it's totally unnecessary?

The text of the code is never changed. There could be 20 court cases dealing with a particular section of the code and the text of it wouldn't change one iota. If you want to know what the statute means, you cannot just read the statute, you must also read the 20 court cases and figure out how they impact the statute's meaning.

Milam firmly declares that the redemption provision of 12 USC 411 is substantively meaningless and merely gives it formal effect. So yes. You can formally redeem your currency under the statute, but the act is meaningless.

 

[tokeprep]

Really that's not how it works? Are you pretending I don't know what the Statutes at Large are and where to find them at the Repository? We know the Code is an ongoing process to make current and easily referencable, the stautes from the Statutes at Large that would be necessary for current applications. Yet your claim is simply that the ones I reference have been allowed to let slide or are a result of poor housekeeping.

No, no, that's not my claim at all. You just read my post, so why would you say that? My claim is that the government never conducts such housekeeping in the first place. The code is "made current" only in the sense that it is updated to reflect amendments and repeals, and edited to align relevant things together. The code is NOT "current" in the sense that it reflects court cases.

You have to remember what the code is supposed to be, which is a collection of the statutes congress has passed. That's it. The code is not supposed to be a thorough representation of the law and no one represents it as such.

Sure you have. You have told me 12usc411 and 31usc5115 are useless because of the wording of Milam. You say 31usc5115 means nothing to this issue since Milam doesn't mention it.

I never said 12 USC 411 was useless, only that the redemption provision was substantively irrelevant. As for 31 USC 5115, I never said it was useless, and I never said it didn't mean anything either. The court didn't mention that statute, so there's no reason to believe Milam has any effect on it.

You have claimed the US code is not up to date in this thread.
We have both talked about the version of the Code we wish we could afford that does cite the court cases involved does the one we look at on house.gov or Cornell have different text besides the court citations?

You're misunderstanding what "up to date" means in this context. "Up to date" just means that all the newly enacted laws are reflected in the code; previously published text that doesn't contain the most recent changes by congress is not "up to date."

Annotated codes don't edit or alter the text of the code--they reproduce it exactly. The only difference between the Cornell site and any other non-commercial version of the code and an annotated version is that the latter has summaries of court cases that impact how the code should be interpreted.

 

[tokeprep]

I dug up a few other cases on this issue:

US v. Wangrud:

Mr. Wangrud appeals his conviction on two counts of wilful failure to make an income tax return. 26 U.S.C. s 7203. For the tax years in question the defendant received checks from the State Farm Insurance Company as compensation for his services. He now argues that he did not receive money, since the checks could be cashed only for federal reserve notes and that these are not redeemable in specie. We publish this opinion solely to make it clear that this argument has absolutely no merit. We affirm this conviction.

By statute it is established that federal reserve notes, on an equal basis with other coins and currencies of the United States, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private, including taxes. 31 U.S.C. s 392 (Supp.1976). This statute is well within the constitutional authority of Congress. U.S.Const. art. I, s 8. It so completely disposes of appellant's argument that it is unnecessary for us to invoke other provisions of the Internal Revenue Code which would be equally dispositive, defining as income compensation received in forms other than money. See Internal Revenue Code of 1954, s 61.

We have considered appellant's other argument and we find it to be without merit.

The conviction is affirmed.

The defendant argued he didn't receive "money" because he got checks that were paid in Federal Reserve Notes. The court says his argument has "absolutely no merit." I think you might latch onto the specie thing again in this case, but wait, I've got a better case for you, US v. Gardiner:

Gardiner next asserts that he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the IRS because he did not receive ‘money’ in 1970 and 1971 as the Federal Reserve Notes he received were not lawful money. Such an argument has been summarily found to be without merit, United States v. Scott, 521 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1975); cf. Milam v. United States, 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974), and we so find here. His other arguments are of even lesser merit and the judgment is therefore

Affirmed.

Here, the defendant argued Federal Reserve Notes weren't lawful money, no quotations marks at issue. The court says the argument has been found to be without merit and agrees that it is without merit. Indeed, this court actually cites Milam for the proposition that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money and that arguments to the contrary have been found to be without merit!

 

[twostrokenut]

Congress can't delegate its powers? Courts can't interpret what the words in legislation mean? You can't possibly mean those things. Delegation is a well settled constitutional question; and the reason the court wrote a decision about "lawful money" is because congress didn't define it.

Not to make lawful money it can't. How can you delegate that any how? Lawful money means directly issued by our government and the Fed is not our government. Treasury is though.

The fact that the Fed is authorized to issue a form of lawful money does not mean that they are authorized to issue any form of lawful money. They can't issue coins just as they can't issue United States Notes--the authority to do so is vested in other places.

WTF??
Of course the authority to issue US Notes and Coins lies in The Treasury....please keep smoking your buds but do try and remember we already covered this.
Again in order for the Fed to issue obligations of the US, the US must put up collateral.....this collateral is lawful money.

The Fed doesn't hold 10% that can be fractionally lent ten times. It's just sitting on their balance sheet.

OK wow. What is sitting on their balance sheet ended up in circulation as Fed Notes.....which get deposited and fractionally lent on, expanded (and diluted). This is what elastic currency means and what is heralded as our savior by you and many others.

So lets be clear. I say that even though the Fed only holds 10% debt it has issued notes way beyond the debt. Wait doesn't that mean the other 90% that can't issue notes with their debt will get fucked over?

............................

From the issuing Authority of Federal Reserve Notes, The Federal Reserve Act:

§411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption
Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

Redemption removes the obligation what don't you get?

What is REDEMPTION?
A repurchase; a buying back.




The liberation of a chattel from pledge or pawn, by paying the debt for which it stood as security. Repurchase of notes, bills, or other evidences of debt (particularly bank-notes and paper-money,) by paying their value In coin to their holders.

Do you still not understand what I mean when I say the FRN only represents a dollar?


Hell I got a little time lol you like court cases so we can stick to court for a bit if you want to. Here is why "quotes" are so important and lawyers and judges use them. You know if you were a judge you were prolly a lawyer first so some things are just basic monotony of going to work......like lawyers or once practicing lawyers knowing why lawful documents have quotes.


The definition of lawful money is used in cases when the lawyer(judge) is citing Congress' definition. Just like Milam had quotes referencing Juiliard. Milam was referencing the actual definition that Juiliard was referencing from Congress.

The aggregate of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution includes broad and comprehensive authority over revenue, finance, and currency. Norman v. B. & O. R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 55 S.Ct. 407, 79 L.Ed. 885. In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

The court does not have the power to declare what is legal tender. That power is in the Congress. Article I, § 8 of the Constitution, empowers the Congress "(t)o coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."




The Supreme Court has sustained the power of Congress to declare Treasury notes to be legal tender in satisfaction of antecedent debts. Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457, 20 L.Ed. 287 (1871)


The cases cited show that this power of Congress has been regarded as plenary (complete in every respect : absolute, unqualified <plenary power>)throughout our history. A definitive case on this is Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., supra. This decision was announced at the height of the great Depression.United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

This has been revised to just simply "cannot be held in reserves" absolutely meaning Fractional Reserves.


What you are still not getting is that the two definitions, lawful money and legal tender are not interchangeable. Legal tender may be accepted for duties on imports and for interest on the public debt. Lawful money may not. Lawful money is what is used to accrue the public debt.


Congress has had 100 years to amend the Federal Reserve Act to say what you claim it must say to support your theory and you still insist that:


"12 USC 411: Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption
Text contains those laws in effect on June 3, 2013"


is simply not so by your decree.........in fact the last time it was edited was 80 years ago to strike the provision to redeem in gold and silver which I reckon you simply fail to connect to the Emercency that existed in 1933..........and yet the provision to redeem still remains as the Emercency still remains...........

Redemption is Lawfully required Because We The People have a Natural Right to use interest free non-negotiable money as per the Constitution represented by gold and silver, if it is paper it must retain these properties that are undeniably held by gold and silver which Greenbacks (US Notes) were argued to also have because they supposedly retained these properties.

This is simply because We The People are Congress. Our Representatives using Our Money. The redemption provides Congress absolute right to have back what it puts on deposit with The Fed.


When Congress deposits lawful money with the Fed to get Fed notes flowing, We The People are free to redeem them in case they suck............and more and more of us think they do!!!!

 

[twostrokenut]

I never brought that up. You said the UCC wasn't actually the law not realizing that every state had enacted it, and when I told you that was the case, you said I forgot Utah. Utah's having enacted the UCC has nothing to do with gold/silver currency.

Since the UCC is expressly inapplicable to money, no one is going to "use the provisions of the UCC" to pay their taxes in Federal Reserve Notes.

No no no. You cited UCC definition of "money" as absolute because UCC was adopted as state law.

Then I cite Utah as an example of why this is not true.....nice that you agree now this is progress.

Again I mean using the provisions of what is "negotiable" pertaining to notes that are or are not "money". To pay taxes instead of using lawful gold or silver since Utah specifically did this to beat inflation.

 

[tokeprep]

No no no. You cited UCC definition of "money" as absolute because UCC was adopted as state law.

Then I cite Utah as an example of why this is not true.....nice that you agree now this is progress.

Again I mean using the provisions of what is "negotiable" pertaining to notes that are or are not "money". To pay taxes instead of using lawful gold or silver since Utah specifically did this to beat inflation.

If you think that you just misunderstood. You kept talking about negotiable instruments and calling Federal Reserve Notes negotiable instruments; I referred to the UCC definition only because the UCC says that money is not a negotiable instrument. Because Federal Reserve Notes are money, they are not negotiable instruments and the provisions of Article 3 are totally irrelevant to Federal Reserve Notes.

I never claimed and am not now claiming that the UCC definition of money is the definition of money everywhere.

I never argued and do not argue now that gold and silver cannot be money, lawful money, legal tender, etc. That is totally irrelevant and distinct from what we're discussing--it has nothing to do with the UCC.

If Federal Reserve Notes are money, then by definition they are not negotiable instruments under Utah law. The gold and silver stuff has nothing to do with the issue.

 

[twostrokenut]

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized.

The difference between the Lawful Paper Money that Congress did establish and The Feds currency which is issued and authorized by Congress "for no other purpose than making advances to Federal Reserve Banks"

You're misquoting the statute, you realize? It doesn't matter because that extra sentence doesn't make a difference anyway to the "lawful money" issue anyway.

How so? There is no subsection to this statement, the only purpose for issuance is for reserves, then we borrow to create the expansion, that part isn't in there because we define it through our actions.

You put the words in quotes even though they weren't the text of the statute.

Wow dude that was nit-pickey......I take it we have established how to use quotes now. That says exactly what I said it does.

This is merely the authorization to make the notes. The issue of mechanically circulating them is threshed out in other statutes.

So what? We already agreed our borrowing them expands them. This is not merely the authorization it defines the purpose and restricts that purpose to no other.



[/COLOR]
The court NEVER said ANYTHING about paper notes issued by the United States directly and it NEVER said ANYTHING about non-negotiable notes. You think otherwise based on the quotation marks around "lawful money" and the fact that Juilliard involved United States Notes.

WTF? Dance around stuff much? We have covered this to DEATH. Notes issued by the US directly are non-negotiable all 50 states use the UCC remember?

You cited Juiliard as proof FRN's are lawful money because you claim it upheld Congress delegating the ability to issue lawful money to the Fed. You change your position now?

As I have already previously demonstrated, if we follow your understanding of Juilliard--which is that it applies solely to paper currency with the attributes of United States Note--and believe that's what the court meant with the words it said, the opinion immediately breaks down and stops making sense.

given the definition of "redemption" is to re-purchase; to buy back.....why does this not make sense or break down? It just means the act of redemption frees that which is held as reserve to circulate the note.

You argue that the court says the power described in Juilliard--which you claim is the power to issue non-negotiable notes, etc., etc.--has been delegated to the Fed under 12 USC 411. This makes absolutely no sense. Obviously you are distorting and misunderstanding what the court said.

No you twist what I said, I said the power in Juilliard was for the Congress to issue lawful money which is non-negotiable....what has been delegated to the Fed is issuing negotiable instruments based on non-negotiable reserves. Court knows how money comes into existence if not it still must obey definitions of legal tender and lawful money already defined and enActed.




All I'm doing is following the argument you made. You said "the power" is to "put [notes] into circulation by borrowing actual lawful money." If you're right, then the court says in the sentence I keep quoting that the power to put notes in circulation by borrowing actual lawful money has been delegated to the Fed under 12 USC 411. Since 12 USC 411 says nothing about borrowing lawful money, your interpretation makes no sense and the court could not possibly have meant what you keep suggesting.

OK then. You are the one that quoted "the power" is to put notes into circulation by borrowing lawful money go check it. I merely pointed out you were excluding the "by borrowing actual lawful money" part and concluded the circulating notes were lawful money.

Again "under 12usc411" means under the provisions of.....meaning Fed notes issued at the discretion of the board of governors or bla bla must adhere to Congressional issuance as per 12usc411.......legal tender notes can be issued by the Fed because Congress said they could if they have lawful reserves. They may be redeemed in lawful money by the Fed, or Treasury. If lawful money is given to you by the Fed in the form of a Fed note with the obligation removed, the Fed did not issue this money to you, just redeemed it. Effectively he who made the demand issued it into circulation, from reserve.


Just one problem, again. Of that $300 million authorized to be issued, most of it is already issued and outstanding--in the hands of collectors who sell the old notes for far, far above face value. You told everyone people do it all the time on eBay.

That $300 million is just $300 million. A dollar is a dollar; the time that's passed is irrelevant. You want to know why the statute says $300 million? Because the treasury hasn't issued United States Notes for more than 40 years, so it's totally irrelevant to them.


I found one example of someone selling them on Ebay and used it to show why Fed notes are swapped for other fed notes when redeemed...........this wouldn't matter if all our notes had red ink on them they would be too common......

The debt ceiling gets raised all the time why can't the non-debt ceiling???
What would 300 million be today adjusted for inflation?

 

[tokeprep]

Not to make lawful money it can't. How can you delegate that any how? Lawful money means directly issued by our government and the Fed is not our government. Treasury is though.

And what's your authority for saying congress cannot delegate that authority? What statute or court case says that "lawful money" must be "directly issued by our government"?

Of course the authority to issue US Notes and Coins lies in The Treasury....please keep smoking your buds

but do try and remember we already covered this.
Again in order for the Fed to issue obligations of the US, the US must put up collateral.....this collateral is lawful money.

What statute or court case says that the United States must put up "lawful money" as collateral in order for the Fed to issue Federal Reserve Notes?

OK wow. What is sitting on their balance sheet ended up in circulation as Fed Notes.....which get deposited and fractionally lent on, expanded (and diluted). This is what elastic currency means and what is heralded as our savior by you and many others.

So lets be clear. I say that even though the Fed only holds 10% debt it has issued notes way beyond the debt. Wait doesn't that mean the other 90% that can't issue notes with their debt will get fucked over?

There's your problem. What's on their balance sheet didn't necessarily end up in circulation as Federal Reserve Notes. The amount of reserves on deposit at the Fed has climbed from a few billion pre-crisis into hundreds of billions of dollars, concurrent with QE. This money hasn't even been lent out once, let alone ten times. Beyond those reserves, when the Fed pays cash for securities, that cash can be consumed in many activities that have nothing to do with lending. The big banks, for example, have lately been focused on building up their capital reserves, buying back stock, and paying dividends to their shareholders, not lending.

Originally Posted by http://thelawdictionary.org/redemption/
What is REDEMPTION?
A repurchase; a buying back.

The liberation of a chattel from pledge or pawn, by paying the debt for which it stood as security. Repurchase of notes, bills, or other evidences of debt (particularly bank-notes and paper-money,) by paying their value In coin to their holders.

Do you still not understand what I mean when I say the FRN only represents a dollar?

I understand what redemption means. The statute merely requires that Federal Reserve Notes be redeemable with lawful money. If they are lawful money, they're redeemable with other Federal Reserve Notes. We're talking about a fiat currency, so this should make total sense--there is nothing to do redeem it with because the currency exists by decree, not because there's anything valuable underlying it. Paper for paper.

This wasn't always the case, because when that statute was passed we didn't have a fiat currency. But now we do, which renders that part of the statute meaningless.

Hell I got a little time lol you like court cases so we can stick to court for a bit if you want to. Here is why "quotes" are so important and lawyers and judges use them. You know if you were a judge you were prolly a lawyer first so some things are just basic monotony of going to work......like lawyers or once practicing lawyers knowing why lawful documents have quotes.

The definition of lawful money is used in cases when the lawyer(judge) is citing Congress' definition. Just like Milam had quotes referencing Juiliard. Milam was referencing the actual definition that Juiliard was referencing from Congress.

Congress never defined "lawful money." The court could not possibly be referencing some definition that does not exist.

Originally Posted by http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/638/182/211365/

The aggregate of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution includes broad and comprehensive authority over revenue, finance, and currency. Norman v. B. & O. R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 55 S.Ct. 407, 79 L.Ed. 885. In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

That is absolutely true, which is why it's exactly what the code says.

Originally Posted by https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/608/608.F2d.400.78-1834.html

The court does not have the power to declare what is legal tender. That power is in the Congress. Article I, § 8 of the Constitution, empowers the Congress "(t)o coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."

The court doesn't need to declare what's legal tender because congress has exercised its power. 31 USC 5103: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

The Supreme Court has sustained the power of Congress to declare Treasury notes to be legal tender in satisfaction of antecedent debts. Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457, 20 L.Ed. 287 (1871)

We're not talking about treasury notes.

The cases cited show that this power of Congress has been regarded as plenary (complete in every respect : absolute, unqualified <plenary power>)throughout our history. A definitive case on this is Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., supra. This decision was announced at the height of the great Depression.United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

This has been revised to just simply "cannot be held in reserves" absolutely meaning Fractional Reserves.

Yes, I agree with you, congress has absolute power over money. That's what enables the authorization of Federal Reserve Notes and the delegation of money powers to the Federal Reserve.

What you are still not getting is that the two definitions, lawful money and legal tender are not interchangeable. Legal tender may be accepted for duties on imports and for interest on the public debt. Lawful money may not. Lawful money is what is used to accrue the public debt.

Your basis for saying lawful money may not be accepted for duties on imports or used for interest on the public debt? I take it it's this text in Juilliard, quoting the statute authorizing United States Notes:

"The notes of the United States, tendered in payment of the defendant's debt to the plaintiff, were originally issued under the acts of congress of February 25, 1862, c. 33; July 11, 1862, c. 142; and March 3, 1863, c. 73, passed during the war of the rebellion, and enacting that these notes should 'be lawful money and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States,' except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt."

This is clearly not a definition of lawful money. The statute merely says that the notes are lawful money and a legal tender, except in the specified cases. It does NOT say "'Lawful money' means money that may not be accepted for duties on imports or for interest on the public debt."

Congress has had 100 years to amend the Federal Reserve Act to say what you claim it must say to support your theory and you still insist that:

"12 USC 411: Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption
Text contains those laws in effect on June 3, 2013"

is simply not so by your decree.........in fact the last time it was edited was 80 years ago to strike the provision to redeem in gold and silver which I reckon you simply fail to connect to the Emercency that existed in 1933..........and yet the provision to redeem still remains as the Emercency still remains...........

Once again, you keep accusing me of saying this law isn't effect. I never said that; indeed, I said exactly the opposite: the fact that the statute is in effect is the reason that it's still in the code, even though it's substantively meaningless. Congress is the only body that can remove the text from the code.

Why would congress need to do that? Well, they don't, which is really the reason why they haven't. The courts have answered the questions.

Redemption is Lawfully required Because We The People have a Natural Right to use interest free non-negotiable money as per the Constitution represented by gold and silver, if it is paper it must retain these properties that are undeniably held by gold and silver which Greenbacks (US Notes) were argued to also have because they supposedly retained these properties.

This is simply because We The People are Congress. Our Representatives using Our Money. The redemption provides Congress absolute right to have back what it puts on deposit with The Fed.

When Congress deposits lawful money with the Fed to get Fed notes flowing, We The People are free to redeem them in case they suck............and more and more of us think they do!!!!

Redemption is lawfully required because that's how congress chose to write the statute originally. We the people, who enacted the constitution, delegated money power to the federal government. Despite your whimpers to the contrary, there is no meaningful debate otherwise. The government has the right to issue coins and fix their values and it has the right to borrow money on government credit, backed by its taxing powers. How can you possibly argue that the money power somehow continued to reside in the people?

You presently have the statutory right to redeem your Federal Reserve Notes for an equivalent value of Federal Reserve Notes. The constitution requires nothing more; the people have no power to override except by electing representatives, amending the constitution, etc., since that power was delegated to the federal government.

 

[tokeprep]

Wow dude that was nit-pickey......I take it we have established how to use quotes now. That says exactly what I said it does.

I find it disturbing that you would put something in quotation marks that was not actually a quote. Since you've been making arguments centered around quotation marks, I would think this an entirely understandable objection. But like I said, it didn't matter to your point anyway.

So what? We already agreed our borrowing them expands them. This is not merely the authorization it defines the purpose and restricts that purpose to no other.

Except not: "Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized." You may not have appreciated it, but "as hereinafter set forth" requires you to look at this statute in connection with all the other statutes in the subchapter, which further define the mechanical process.

WTF? Dance around stuff much? We have covered this to DEATH. Notes issued by the US directly are non-negotiable all 50 states use the UCC remember?

You cited Juiliard as proof FRN's are lawful money because you claim it upheld Congress delegating the ability to issue lawful money to the Fed. You change your position now?

I'm not dancing around anything. The Milam court didn't reference notes issued directly by the United States or non-negotiable notes. What you just said is coming out of your own ass, not out of their opinion, because the latter says neither of the things you just claimed it did.

I didn't say Juilliard upheld congress' delegating the ability to issue lawful money to the Fed. Juilliard was decided in the 1800s, so that wouldn't make any sense.

given the definition of "redemption" is to re-purchase; to buy back.....why does this not make sense or break down? It just means the act of redemption frees that which is held as reserve to circulate the note.

Because if we follow what you claim the words mean, the Milam court literally says that congress has delegated authority to issued United States Notes to the Fed under 12 USC 411: "The power so precisely described in Juilliard has been delegated to the Federal Reserve System under the provisions of 12 U.S.C. § 411."

No you twist what I said, I said the power in Juilliard was for the Congress to issue lawful money which is non-negotiable....what has been delegated to the Fed is issuing negotiable instruments based on non-negotiable reserves. Court knows how money comes into existence if not it still must obey definitions of legal tender and lawful money already defined and enActed.

I'm not twisting what you said at all. According to you, Juilliard says absolutely nothing that is relevant to Federal Reserve Notes and speaks solely to the United States Notes issued in the 1800s. "The power" under that case is for congress "to issue lawful money which is non-negotiable," according to you. But for the 10th time, this is what the Milam court said: "The power so precisely described in Juilliard has been delegated to the Federal Reserve System under the provisions of 12 U.S.C. § 411." According to you, "the power" is that to issue United States Notes. Thus in that line of text the Milam court says that this power has been delegated to the Federal Reserve System under 12 USC 411. This cannot possibly make sense.

You now say that what has been delegated to the Fed is "issuing negotiable instruments based on non-negotiable reserves." What court said that? What statute says that? None. You're just making it up out of nothing.

What definition of legal tender and lawful money is being violated...?

OK then. You are the one that quoted "the power" is to put notes into circulation by borrowing lawful money go check it. I merely pointed out you were excluding the "by borrowing actual lawful money" part and concluded the circulating notes were lawful money.

I said "the power" was the power to issue a national currency in paper form that is lawful money. You said "the power" was something far narrower and started talking about United States Notes.

Again "under 12usc411" means under the provisions of.....meaning Fed notes issued at the discretion of the board of governors or bla bla must adhere to Congressional issuance as per 12usc411.......legal tender notes can be issued by the Fed because Congress said they could if they have lawful reserves. They may be redeemed in lawful money by the Fed, or Treasury. If lawful money is given to you by the Fed in the form of a Fed note with the obligation removed, the Fed did not issue this money to you, just redeemed it. Effectively he who made the demand issued it into circulation, from reserve.

"The power" described in Juilliard has been delegated under 12 USC 411. What power is that? If I misconstrued what you said it was, tell me what it was.

Where in the code does congress say that the Fed can issue Federal Reserve Notes only if it has lawful reserves?

I found one example of someone selling them on Ebay and used it to show why Fed notes are swapped for other fed notes when redeemed...........this wouldn't matter if all our notes had red ink on them they would be too common......

The debt ceiling gets raised all the time why can't the non-debt ceiling???
What would 300 million be today adjusted for inflation?

I don't care what you wanted it to be an example of. The fact is that most of the authorized United States Notes are and were already outstanding, so they couldn't possibly figure into this redemption scheme you keep describing. The treasury can only issue up to $300 million in United States Notes--that's it. So long as they're out, they're out.

Why would it matter what $300 million is today adjusting for inflation? $300 million in 1865 held as cash until 2013 would be worth only $300 million.

 

[Harrekin]

So a metallic based currency would hold it last value greater than a fiat one?

Too easy.

 

[tokeprep]

So a metallic based currency would hold it last value greater than a fiat one?

Too easy.

I'm sorry, what?

 

[Harrekin]

I'm sorry, what?

You should be sorry...you should.

 

[tokeprep]

You should be sorry...you should.

Would hold it last value greater than a fiat one? If you mean United States Notes, they haven't held value at at all.

 

[Harrekin]

Would hold it last value greater than a fiat one? If you mean United States Notes, they haven't held value at at all.

Time will reveal your foolishness, I shall remember this moment when it does.

Pineapple!

Chicken kebabs!

 

[twostrokenut]

Would hold it last value greater than a fiat one? If you mean United States Notes, they haven't held value at at all.

Well now according to you earlier they did not even exist except for old ones that merely need to be destroyed haha