“Money isn’t funny!”

U.S. money has changed a great deal since first defined in 1792.  The Constitution only gave Congress the power to coin money, not print it!

“The Congress shall have Power . . . ‘To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures’”.  (Art. I, Sec. 8 §5).  Simple language but it required enabling legislation to fulfill.

Thus, in 1792, the U.s. Congress passed just such a law.  US money was defined as “dollars or units”, the word “dollar” coming directly from the Spanish milled “dollar” commonly known as a “piece of eight”.  A standard dollar contained 371-4/16^th parts of a grain of pure silver.  The gold “Eagles” were equivalent in value to 10 silver dollars and contained 257-4/8ths of a grain of pure gold (equal to 3,712-1/2 grains of fine silver).

According to the Constitution, “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts  . . .”  (Art. 1, Sec. 10, §1)

That definition of the dollar has never been changed!

Because the colonies had “printed” money during the Revolution and immediately thereafter in order to finance the war, such paper became more a “promissory note” than a medium of exchange and their value sunk disastrously.  The devastating inflation that existed at that time influenced the founders to the point they wanted nothing to do with “paper money”.  Thus, the establishment of the gold and silver standard as the foundation for US currency.  This standard has never been repealed!

The Founding Fathers intended that there be uniform standards for the currency and the weights and measures to be used in commerce.  That way, all citizens regardless of where they lived  could rely on the fact that a foot or a dollar always had the same value in every state, east or west, wherever encountered or employed.

Ever since Lyndon Johnson’s administration, the coinage minted has been bi-metallic and thus should really be called counterfeit.  They violate the Constitution and law establishing the content and value of a “dollar”.  From 1913 with the creation of the Federal Reserve System, there has been a steady movement to eliminate all references to actual money from the paper currency issued by that system.  Please look at any paper money you have in your wallets or purses.  The heading is Federal Reserve Note.  You can search every corner and never find that it is “redeemable” in anything, other than more worthless paper!

In 1913, the Federal Reserve issued paper money (certificates) which were fully redeemable in gold (until 1934) or silver (until 1968).  These were known as Silver or Gold Certificates and stated that there was on deposit in the Treasury of the United States the equivalent amount of the metal stated which could be delivered to the “bearer on demand”.

Ultimately in 1963, the notation printed on the Federal Reserve Notes (no longer called “certificates”) was changed to read: “Legal tender for all debts, public or private.”  No longer redeemable in anything.

The banner which now reads, “Federal Reserve Note”! must be recognized, in legal parlance, to mean it is a promise to pay.  It is not money in the true sense since it is not “convertible” into cash!  Try taking any Federal Reserve Note into a bank and asking for the equivalent amount in silver for it.

This is why many now say we only have “funny (fiat) money”!  The move from silver and gold to printing press money has left every citizen with nothing solid or tangible.  But it isn’t funny.  It’s tragic!

That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com

©Copyright 2012  Hillard W. Welch

Applied or Interpreted?

One has to wonder whether the Founding Fathers believed the Constitution should be applied or interpreted with respect to the management of the country.

Human nature is such that man always tries to “see beyond” what is written or even what the facts may be in his insatiable thirst for growth and expansion.  It’s considered a part of life and ambition plays a strong part in a politician’s life.

Reading and contemplating what the Framers wrote and the view they had of the individuals they expected to serve in the various government functions, it appears they anticipated that the large majority of decisions would result from applying the principles they had so carefully crafted into the Constitution.

As written, each of the three branches, executive, legislative and judicial, had reasonably well defined areas of responsibility and authority.  Only the legislature could propose laws.  The executive was charged with seeing that properly executed laws were adhered to.  The judiciary was to apply the Constitution whenever a question arose as to the constitutionality of a law.  Note that the word was “apply”, not interpret.

To interpret anything is to inject an individual’s idea of what the point is rather than what the facts might be.  In the past 100 years, we have seen more “interpretation” than “application” of the constitution with respect to the operation of the federal government.

Today we have Supreme Court Justices (Ginsburg in particular, Breyer in part) openly stating that we should incorporate in our constitutional “interpretation” what exists in international law or laws in other countries.  That is, to a certain extent, a total disregard for the oath taken upon assuming the position of a Supreme Court Justice (to preserve, protect and defend).  The softest name for the individuals who do so is hypocrite but perhaps more pointed, “intellectually dishonest”.  

For those who wish to point to the Declaration of Independence and its clause, “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation”, please note that it does not say “subject our decision or incorporate their thinking” in the action being taken.  When Jefferson wrote that part, it seems obvious that he was “selling” the point of view that the colonies were justified in their action since the King sought “the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

If we apply the Constitution to a given situation, the question of “compliance” becomes clearer.  It is not clouded by the introduction of extraneous ideas or a personal desire or interpretation of the situation at hand.  It rules out the possibility of future deviations from the intended purpose of that part of the document being applied.  As an example, consider the “separation of church and state” so evident in today’s discussions.  Nowhere in the document do such words exist yet they have been incorporated by interpreting the actual words.  Amendment I states: ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”

By interpretation, we are no longer allowed to “worship openly”, start a school game on the playing field with a prayer, utter a word of approval of God in public discourse, or in some situations speak harshly since it might be classified as “hate speech”.  Hardly an accurate application of what was written.  On the very face of it, all this is a violation of the First Amendment’s opening sentence: “Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech, etc. . . .”

The Constitution should be applied while the laws enacted by Congress should be interpreted to determine compliance with the Constitution.

While imagination is a wonderful thing, it deserves no part in applying the Constitution.

That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitionviews.com © Copyright 2012 Hillard W. Welch

Response to an email.

Our Constitution Views article drew a critical response (S. R. P. Marstons Mills, MA)

that deserves an answer.  Let’s highlight some of the more strident comments and respond to them.

The writer stated: 

1.      That document needs to be re-written in its entirety. Better yet, trash it and start over. Virtually every Constitutional scholar knows and has written that the document was purely an 18^th century codification of ideals that were held in earlier times and simply cannot in any way cope with the 21^st century world.

           

A rather large generalization without detail or substantiation.  While it is impolite to answer a question with a question, we must ask, “what part of the Constitution does he consider out of date?”  Free speech?  Freedom of religion?  Trial by jury?  We could go on but let’s leave that to the reader.

2.      His (Mr. Welch’s) states’ rights arguments led to the Civil War and still is in the forefront of impossibly complicated inconsistencies.

The state’s rights argument is one founded in the IXth  and Xth Amendments, part of the initial Bill of Rights.  Yes, the question is still open because the federal government continues to try and subvert the states, converting the country into a single national one rather than a federal one of sovereign entities.  The question is also, what is wrong with the original concept?  By keeping it alive, it reminds all that this country is a federation, not a single nation with an overpowering national government.  Anyone believing in freedom should respect that.

3.      If the Constitution was so perfect, it would not have needed endless amendments and the tens of thousands of federal lawsuits that bury the legal system in a flood of paper. 

A bit of hyperbole to try to make his point.  There have been only 27 amendments in the period from 1787 to 2012, some 225 years!  10 of those (the Bill of Rights) were passed in the year 1791 which means 17 were passed in the following 221 years.  Name another nation with a constitution that can say the same and has produced as much freedom and prosperity for the individual citizens.  When you can, everyone should listen.

4.      He just cannot stand an income tax—the source of pay for our military, Homeland Security, funding for scientific research, highways….

The income tax doesn’t begin to cover the costs of the items to which the write refers.  Other sources provide the bulk of the money and always have.  The income tax was a recommendation of Karl Marx as a way of “redistributing the wealth of a nation”.  If the writer will examine the multitudinous activities of our federal government today, he would undoubtedly decide that some, or many, of the activities are without merit and the money could be better left in the hands of the taxpayers who would invest it thereby creating jobs, an important result of savings!

5.      Mr. Welch would particularly like watching his neighbor Mrs. Brown getting legally beaten by her husband. Or having his 7 year old daughter working at a mill in Fall River.

This one leaves me wondering where the writer is coming from.  Sharia law, something foreign to the United States, is the only one of which I am aware that condones or supports his suggestion of a wife “being beaten legally” by her husband.  As for child labor, as the United States has progressed, it outlawed that as well, so what is the point?

In conclusion, it is difficult to determine the writer’s orientation.  Many of the comments seem Marxist or socialist in their content.  That leads to the comments made by two political individuals: Margaret Thatcher who said, “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”   And Winston Churchill who had previously stated that “its [socialism’s] inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

and that’s This Law Abiding Citizen’s response to S.R.P. and those that have chosen to abandon what is still the law of the land, The Constitution. S.R.P.’s opinion seems to be that the secular progressive agenda is the road we should all take.  I strongly disagree.

Have we got it backwards? (Part 2 of 2)

Note: To a man, the Founding Fathers spoke of a “limited government.”  From the ratification of the Constitution until about 1913, the original concept remained in place and was more or less adhered to by each succeeding administration.

Last month, we examined these origins.  Here in Part II we will review some examples of the more egregious usurpations of power and the branch of government responsible.  Your view is important.

In the judicial area, we have had Supreme Court Justices “incorporate” words and meanings never found in the original document (Justice Black and the separation of church and state).  They have even overridden the protection of private property (Amendment V) in the Kelo vs New London, CT. case. 

In the Congressional area, legislators have seen fit to ignore the requirement that only Congress can declare war, yet we send our soldiers to foreign lands to fight and die.  Ever since that Income Tax Amendment was passed, congress appears to have believed the check-book was open and could be used for any purpose so long as they called it “general welfare”.  As Madison pointed out in his writings in support of the constitution, those words related to the 17 specific activities authorized, nothing more, since they constituted the “general welfare” of the entire nation.

In the Executive branch, the powers usurped are without limit.  Irrespective of whether the words existed in the Constitution, one or more presidents have seen fit to establish departments and agencies whose edicts take on the force or law.  Nowhere in the document is the federal government authorized to be involved in the personal health of a citizen.  Nor is there authorization for a Department of Education. 

An area to be questioned is foreign aid.  We scratch our heads trying to find the words in the document.  Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson said our foreign policy should be to promote commerce and friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. As we look at our Foreign Aid, there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the Congress to appropriate money by taxing the citizens and then giving that money to foreign governments to support whatever they desire.  A look at the recipients causes more head scratching.  Almost all recipients consistently vote against the interests of the United States.  Seems backward if we are concerned with our own country’s welfare.  The Founders knowledge of history told them that money never brought strong relationships.  Only strong character and honest dealings between the participants can produce solid friendships. 

Another question.  The use of our tax dollars when we read reports that those citizens who are actually paying them (it is reported that almost half the population pay no income taxes at all) are literally supporting the other half of the population who enjoy their “entitlements” in the form of food stamps and subsidized housing, education and medical care, none of which are mentioned in the Constitution. 

Lost in translation.  The Founding Fathers apparently accepted as part and parcel of the American character that each individual would be responsible for his own well being and that of his family.  Self government required self-control and responsibility on the part of each individual citizen.  Citizens were not expected to look to government to take care of them. The Founders probably had in mind the debacle of Rome with its bread and circuses.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, “that government is best which governs least.”  Yet he expected government to secure the fundamental rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” (Declaration of Independence.)  The government was to stay out of the way so the individual citizens could achieve maximum success in whatever endeavor they undertook applying their talents and abilities. How do we square that with the myriad of regulations impacting every business every day, restricting action, requiring massive non-productive documentation and costing untold sums of money in compliance?

As we look at today’s government in operation, how close is it to what we were promised by the Founders?   Or, do we have it backwards?   That’s a serious question.  

 I know my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com  ©Copyright 2012 Hillard W. Welch