Talk:Legal Tender Cases

First Bank

Discussion by a single-purpose editor with multiple IPs blocked for disruption and personal attacks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've reverted the changes from IP 71.174.142.108. I will congratulate the IP for using at least a semi-decent source for this addition, but they did not finish the full quote from the dissenting opinion, but stopped early. The quote included in the reference - "but these notes and bills were never regarded as real money, but were always treated as its representatives only, and were described as currency." Now, the next sentence from the source - "The legal tender notes themselves do not purport to be anything else than promises to pay money." This does not support the IP's addition that they were not legal tender, as the source used to support the claim flatly rejects it. Ravensfire (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Added material to counter insinuation that Fist Bank of US printed legal tender paper money. The first use of legal tender paper money under the Constitution were the greenbacks used to fund the Civil War.71.174.142.108 (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC) (EC)Per WP:DUCK, 4.154.232.160 is the same editor as 71.174.142.108, but using dialup instead of Verizon DSL. At what point does this become a WP:SOCK issue? Don't know where your pet duck got the information that I am using dial-up, but its wrong.71.174.142.108 (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC) You added material to your first change? That would be incorrect. You added nothing new. Didn't need to add anything new, the cite supports the material added.71.174.142.108 (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Now kindly address the point of my comment, your source calls them "legal tender". How does that support your claim that they are not legal tender? My source does NOT call the notes issued by the First Bank of the US legal tender.71.174.142.108 (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC) (WP:SOCK only comes into play if the IP deliberately hops to give the impression of more support in a discussion. Dynamic addresses being what they are, it's nothing major. If anything, the IP has been fairly good about the change, making a point of noting when their IP address changed. Ravensfire (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the explanation of the non-WP:SOCK issue. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Also, IP, you are getting close to the WP:3RR limit. Please discuss the changes here and don't revert without some consensus. Ravensfire (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC) If you two weren't ganging up on me I'd get to report you first and get you banned.71.174.142.108 (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC) My cite states that no notes issued prior to the "greenbacks" were legal tender under the greenbacks and you would have known this if you had bothered to read he material I posted in the two wiki Fed articles. BTW: are you wise and omniscient ones (sarcasm) aware that Federal reserve notes were not legal tender until 1933? lets see if you read it here I believe that Congress does NOT have the power to make paper money a legal tender and does not even have the power to make gold and silver a legal tender.The reference below show clearly that at least one US president and Funding Father agree with me on both counts and that at least two US presidents, and Founding Fathers agree with me on one count. I hope that claims of original research and synthesis can now be put to rest as BOGUS. An old NY times article http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9501E2DB133BEE33A25751C1A9669D94679ED7CF references the following quotes James Madison - Thus the pretext for a paper currency and particularly for making the bill a legal tender, either for public or private debt, was cut off Thomas Jefferson - I now deny their (Congress's) power of making paper money, or anything else, a legal tender A Mr Benton who is also cited, states: The power granted to Congress to coin money is an authority to stamp metallic money, and is not an authority for emitting slips of paper containing promises to pay money. Per Yale Law School records of the minutes of the vote to TAKE AWAY from Congress the power to "emit bills of credit" during the Constitutional Convention as recorded by Founding Father and future president James Madison http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp FN23 This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, [FN24] and particularly for making the bills a tender [FN24] either for public or private debts. and "Mr. Ghorum was for striking out, without inserting any prohibition. if the words stand they may suggest and lead to the measure." My aside: The power to be struck out was the power to "emit". Mr. Ghorum, (Madison misspelled the name - the person is actually Nathanial Gorham) states that if the words stand (the words being "emit bills of credit") that "they may suggest and lead to the measure" with the measure being printing legal tender paper money. To be ABSOLUTELY clear, this vote denied Congress the power to "emit" per money, and strikes at the core of arguments in favor of paper money, because Congress cannot make paper money a legal tender because the power to print paper money was REMOVED from Congress. If Congress cannot even print paper money, how can it make it legal tender? In Federalist 44 - Madison states The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it. From Craig v Misouri The whole was intended to exclude everything from use as a circulating medium except gold and silver, and to give to the United States the exclusive control over the coining and valuing of the metallic medium. That the real dollar may represent property, and not the shadow of it. From the dissenting opinion to one of the Legal Tender cases http://supreme.justia.com/us/79/457/case.html - starts with THE CHIEF JUSTICE, dissenting Acts of Congress not made in pursuance of the Constitution are not laws. We perceive no connection between the express power to coin money and the inference that the government may, in any contingency, make its securities perform the functions of coined money, as a legal tender in payment of debts It is unnecessary to say that we reject wholly the doctrine, advanced for the first time, we believe, in this Court by the present majority that the legislature has any "powers under the Constitution which grow out of the aggregate of powers conferred upon the government or out of the sovereignty instituted by it." If this proposition be admitted, and it be also admitted that the legislature is the sole judge of the necessity for the exercise of such powers, the government becomes practically absolute and unlimited. It is true that notes issued by banks, both in England and America, were then in circulation and were used in exchanges, and in common speech called money, and that bills of credit, issued both by Congress and by the states, had been recently in circulation under the same general name; but these notes and bills were never regarded as real money, but were always treated as its representatives only, and were described as currency. The legal tender notes themselves do not purport to be anything else than promises to pay money. They have been held to be securities, and therefore exempt from state taxation, [Footnote 3/13] and the idea that it was ever designed to make such notes a standard of value by the framers of the Constitution is wholly new. The sense of the Convention which framed the Constitution is clear from the account given by Mr. Madison of what took place when the power to emit bills of credit was stricken from the reported draft. He says distinctly that he acquiesced in the motion to strike out because the government would not be disabled thereby from the use of public notes, so far as they would be safe and proper, while it cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts. [Footnote 3/14] The whole discussion upon bills of credit proves beyond all possible question that the Convention regarded the power to make notes a legal tender as absolutely excluded from the Constitution. [Footnote 3/15]' but he added, "NOTHING BUT GOLD AND SILVER COIN CAN BE MADE A TENDER IN PAYMENT OF DEBTS." [Footnote 4/68] Utterances of the kind are found throughout the reported decisions of this Court, but there is not a sentence or word to be found within those volumes, from the organization of the court to the passage of the acts of Congress in question, to support the opposite theory. Excellent source states - http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/documents/Papermoneyart.pdf "In the later half of the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court decided a series of cases that upheld the power of Congress to issue paper money and make it legal tender for all debts. Although the last of these was decided in 1884 several constituencies have kept this debate alive. One of those constituencies is a small, but vocal group that has never been reconciled to the idea of American paper money. These folks maintain that the Constitution did not authorize paper money ... More Influential, perhaps, have been legal commentators who agree that he Legal Tender cases were, from an originalist point of view, wrongly decided" 71.174.142.108 (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Thought you might find this interesting. This is from your excellent source - papermoneyart.pdf "The outcome of my investigation somewhat surprised me. I found that the holdings of the Legal Tender Cases were consistent with the original understanding. It is true that some of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in those cases was superfluous, and some of it was wrong. But the results were clearly correct." Ravensfire (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC) So during the Constitutional Debates the power to "issue" paper money was DENIED Congress for fear it would lead to legal tender paper money and a repeat of what happend to the Continental, and the dufus you cite states that per "original understanding" Congress DOES have that power? Let's try a similar question. Posit that you are unemployed and apply for a job. If you are "denied" that job, do you have it or are you still unemployed? and Pardon me while I laugh. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!71.174.142.108 (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC) And this one (same source) "However, the holding of those cases – that Congress had authority to issue legal tender paper money – was correct as a matter of original understanding." Ravensfire (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC) and what does those comments have to with whether notes issued prior to the greeenback were legal tender? Do you know what year the First Bank of the US was shut down? Do you know what a "Demand note" is or are you ignorant of basic financial terms? How about do you know what a treasure note is? Is a treasury note legal tender? Do you know when Federal Reserve notes first became legal tender? or are you ignorant of that as well? Frankly if you don't know any of the above you should get lost until you do. You may not be aware of it but your ignorance on this subject is HUGE!71.174.142.108 (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Reasons for the semiprotection are given at User talk:71.174.142.108#Disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution

This article currently claims that "Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution explicitly forbids the states from ... making anything but gold and silver coin 'legal tender', ...".

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states: "No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; ...".

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution does not use the term "legal tender". The term "legal tender" is defined differently than the noun "tender". - Servant David (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected the quotation (in the usual rapid Wikipedia fashion).198.228.201.152 (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Material looks slanted in favor of paper money

Originalism section for instance tiptoes around the fact that during the Constitutional Convention a vote was taken to strip the power to issue "bills of credit" aka paper money from the draft US Constitution. This language in the draft allowed the Federal Government to issue paper money as under the Articles of Confederation.

A question posed by Madison during that vote as to whether it would be sufficient to just ban the making of paper money legal tender was overwhelmingly replied to in the negative by other members. In other words it "would NOT be sufficient" to just ban the making of paper money a legal tender and that banning the "issuance" of paper money would be sufficient. In other words because the Federal Government could not issue paper money, it could not find a pretext to make it legal tender.

The article also implies that since paper money was issued under the Articles of Confederation it would therefore also be allowed under the Constitution, conveniently ignoring the fact that issuing paper money was explicitly allowed by language included in the Articles, while that same language was overwhelmingly stripped from the Constitution.

The text below is a partial record on the vote to strip the power to "emit" bills of credit from the US Constitution.

Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS. striking out the words will leave room still for notes of a responsible minister which will do all the good without the mischief. The Monied interest will oppose the plan of Government, if paper emissions be not prohibited.

Mr. GHORUM was for striking out, without inserting any prohibition. if the words stand they may suggest and lead to the measure.

Col. [FN20] MASON had doubts on the subject. Congs. he thought would not have the power unless it were expressed. Though he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet as he could not foresee all emergences, he was unwilling to tie the hands of the Legislature. He observed that the late war could not have been carried on, had such a prohibition existed.

Mr. GHORUM. The power as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing.

Mr. MERCER was a friend to paper money, though in the present state & temper of America, he should neither propose nor approve of such a measure. He was consequently opposed to a prohibition of it altogether. It will stamp suspicion on the Government to deny it a discretion on this point. It was impolitic also to excite the opposition of all those who were friends to paper money. The people of property would be sure to be on the side of the plan, and it was impolitic to purchase their further attachment with the loss of the opposite class of Citizens

Mr. ELSEWORTH thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By witholding the power from the new Governt. more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else. Paper money can in no case be necessary. Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good.

Mr. RANDOLPH, notwithstanding his antipathy to paper money, could not agree to strike out the words, as he could not foresee all the occasions which [FN21] might arise.

Mr. WILSON. It will have a most salutary influence on the credit of the U. States to remove the possibility of paper money. This expedient can never succeed whilst its mischiefs are remembered, and as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources.

Mr. BUTLER. remarked that paper was a legal tender in no Country in Europe. He was urgent for disarming the Government of such a power.

Mr. MASON was still averse to tying the hands of the Legislature altogether. If there was no example in Europe as just remarked, it might be observed on the other side, that there was none in which the Government was restrained on this head.

Mr. READ, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations.

Mr. LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words "(and emit bills")

On the motion for striking out

N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN22] 71.184.176.50 (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Legal Tender Cases. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070713134603/http://www.supremecourthistory.org/04_library/subs_volumes/04_c15_i.html to http://www.supremecourthistory.org/04_library/subs_volumes/04_c15_i.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609130829/http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/115-8/Paulsen.pdf to http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/115-8/Paulsen.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/31-3/Natelson%20Online%20-%20Paper%20Money.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)