Politics and the Economy, Series II: Prices and Price Controls and Their Effects

A place for intelligent and well-thought-out discussion involving politics and associated topics. No nonsense will be tolerated at all.
User avatar
smockers83
Posts: 3889
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:07 pm
Car: 2006 G35 Coupe

Post

Section 10 defines what the states cannot do.

It says states cannot print their own money. That's the job of the federal government. This is to prevent each state from having their own currency.

High school is elite education? Huh, news to me.

Sorry for the Bob insinuation. There used to be someone on here who got banned for obscene remarks after being completely proven wrong and couldn't drop it.


User avatar
Armelius
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:49 am
Car: 95 Maxima, 01 Pathfinder and 1987 Pathfinder 4x4
Contact:

Post

smockers83 wrote:Section 10 defines what the states cannot do.

It says states cannot print their own money. That's the job of the federal government. This is to prevent each state from having their own currency.

High school is elite education? Huh, news to me.

Sorry for the Bob insinuation. There used to be someone on here who got banned for obscene remarks after being completely proven wrong and couldn't drop it.
What exactly did you learn from high school government class besides playing the stock market and doing tax forms?

Are you paying any of your state debts? If so, is it contrary to Art. 1 sec. 10?

Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

User avatar
smockers83
Posts: 3889
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:07 pm
Car: 2006 G35 Coupe

Post

Armelius wrote:Are you paying any of your state debts? If so, is it contrary to Art. 1 sec. 10?

Go ahead. Prove me wrong.
Am I paying the debts of the State of Michigan? If I am, in what way is it unconstitutional and under what provision? I'm confused as to which part you are implying that states violate. Lets clear that part up first so I know what your argument is.

Every time someone's asked me to prove them wrong in this forum, I have. Will be the first to prove me wrong? We shall see.

User avatar
Armelius
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:49 am
Car: 95 Maxima, 01 Pathfinder and 1987 Pathfinder 4x4
Contact:

Post

smockers83 wrote:
Am I paying the debts of the State of Michigan? If I am, in what way is it unconstitutional and under what provision? I'm confused as to which part you are implying that states violate. Lets clear that part up first so I know what your argument is.

Every time someone's asked me to prove them wrong in this forum, I have. Will be the first to prove me wrong? We shall see.
Of the State of Michigan? You lost me there. To the State of Michigan.

Are you paying the State of Michigan in anything other than gold or silver in payment of debts? Yes or no will do.

User avatar
smockers83
Posts: 3889
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:07 pm
Car: 2006 G35 Coupe

Post

Nope, I am not.

However, I think you're confused in interpreting that section of the Constitution (I was, too, originally, confusing it with that states cannot print their own money). What it means is that a state cannot forcibly demand payment in the form of gold or silver. The Constitution doesn't mention any other form of voluntary payment. This means cash can be used to pay debts. In the early days of the country, currency was in short supply so debts were paid in actual goods and/or services.

It does not define what is money. It doesn't say that gold or silver can't be used, but the state can't force it to be used. So if someone wanted to used it, they could. The fact that goods and services were used to pay debts goes back to the fact that the real worth of a nation's economy is it's goods and services, not it's gold reserve, as I said earlier somewhere quoting Adam Smith.
Modified by smockers83 at 5:29 PM 3/7/2009

User avatar
Armelius
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:49 am
Car: 95 Maxima, 01 Pathfinder and 1987 Pathfinder 4x4
Contact:

Post

smockers83 wrote:Nope, I am not.

However, I think you're confused in interpreting that section of the Constitution (I was, too, originally, confusing it with that states cannot print their own money). What it means is that a state cannot forcibly demand payment in the form of gold or silver. The Constitution doesn't mention any other form of voluntary payment. This means cash can be used to pay debts. In the early days of the country, currency was in short supply so debts were paid in actual goods and/or services.

It does not define what is money. It doesn't say that gold or silver can't be used, but the state can't force it to be used. So if someone wanted to used it, they could. The fact that goods and services were used to pay debts goes back to the fact that the real worth of a nation's economy is it's goods and services, not it's gold reserve, as I said earlier somewhere quoting Adam Smith.

Modified by smockers83 at 5:29 PM 3/7/2009
How do you go from this:

No state shall accept anything but gold and silver for payment of debt

to this?

What it means is that a state cannot forcibly demand payment in the form of gold or silver.

We can talk more about who is confused after you explain that.

User avatar
smockers83
Posts: 3889
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:07 pm
Car: 2006 G35 Coupe

Post

Armelius wrote:
How do you go from this:

No state shall accept anything but gold and silver for payment of debt
Because the Constitution doesn't say accept.

It is my opinion, therefore, that US Const, art I, Sec. 10 does not require the State of Michigan to pay its debts or receive payment for debts exclusively in either gold or silver coin. It is further my opinion that the State may not require the payment of private debts excusively in either gold or silver coin since Congress alone possesses and exercises this authority.

Frank J. Kelley

Attorney General http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opin...4.htm

I'm done with this argument as it has nothing to do with prices. If you want to continue it, make another thread.

User avatar
Armelius
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:49 am
Car: 95 Maxima, 01 Pathfinder and 1987 Pathfinder 4x4
Contact:

Post

smockers83 wrote:
Because the Constitution doesn't say accept.

It is my opinion, therefore, that US Const, art I, Sec. 10 does not require the State of Michigan to pay its debts or receive payment for debts exclusively in either gold or silver coin. It is further my opinion that the State may not require the payment of private debts excusively in either gold or silver coin since Congress alone possesses and exercises this authority.

Frank J. Kelley

Attorney General http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opin...4.htm

I'm done with this argument as it has nothing to do with prices. If you want to continue it, make another thread.
It has everything to do with prices. I am glad that you would concede so early. Your argument is pitiful. I was hoping to have a better opinion of you.

Attorney- to turn over property to the crown.

Good day.

User avatar
smockers83
Posts: 3889
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:07 pm
Car: 2006 G35 Coupe

Post

No, this doesn't have to deal with prices. It deals with currency. I am not conceding as I said if you want to continue this argument, start another thread. I have presented enough evidence as that link goes through individual cases to state the AG's case, along with the cases of all the other 50 states. Mind you, you haven't won.
Armelius wrote:Attorney- to turn over property to the crown.


Return to “Politics Etc.”