Post by: Warren on November 05, 2007, 10:29:09 PM
http://www.liberty-watch.com/volume03/issue08/coverstory.php
.
Post by: RevDisk on November 06, 2007, 07:41:08 AM
I'd rather have the mafia angry at me than the IRS. The mafia at least has an ounce of humor. IRS, man... Ever SEEN a complete copy of the tax code? Takes up a good sized room.
Post by: charby on November 06, 2007, 07:45:19 AM
I'd rather have the mafia angry at me than the IRS. The mafia at least has an ounce of humor. IRS, man... Ever SEEN a complete copy of the tax code? Takes up a good sized room.
You could keep warm all winter by burning one copy of the tax code in your wood stove.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 06, 2007, 08:37:25 AM
Post by: roo_ster on November 06, 2007, 09:32:45 AM
Wouldn't it be interesting if the hard currency monetary system crowded out the fiat currentcy system?
Post by: BrokenPaw on November 06, 2007, 09:49:42 AM
The IRS ought to be kicked in the jimmy early and often.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the hard currency monetary system crowded out the fiat currentcy system?
Wouldn't it be interesting if the hard currency monetary system crowded out the fiat currentcy system?
This is a beautiful case, because it's lose-lose for the IRS; either they argue that money has value equal to its face value, in which case a $1 bill is taxable at one dollar, and a $50 gold coin is taxable at $50, and they lose their arguing position in this case, or: they argue that face value is irrelevant, and that intrinsic value is what is important, in which case the whole taxation system falls apart, because the intrinsic value of the greenback is negligible.
Interesting side note: Could one use this ruling as a way to play games with investments? Suppose I spent $806 to purchase a 1-ounce gold coin with a face value of $50; could I then use the face value of the coin to justify that as a $756 loss on investment, and use that loss to offset gains elsewhere?
-BP
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 06, 2007, 09:57:05 AM
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on November 06, 2007, 09:58:06 AM
What about the guy a few months ago that caught the record home run ball? The IRS was going to whop him with taxes for over half a mil just because that's what they thought the ball was going to be worth if it was ever sold.
That's right up there with assessing property tax on folks' real estate in Second Life.
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 06, 2007, 10:04:46 AM
With that ball, however, there was no market comparison. The only way to establish the value of the ball was to sell it. Unless the ball - that specific ball - was sold, there was no reasonable way to judge market value. Until that time, the ball was worth exactly the purchase price paid for it before it was swatted across the outfield and into history.
Brad
Post by: charby on November 06, 2007, 10:21:50 AM
Interesting side note: Could one use this ruling as a way to play games with investments? Suppose I spent $806 to purchase a 1-ounce gold coin with a face value of $50; could I then use the face value of the coin to justify that as a $756 loss on investment, and use that loss to offset gains elsewhere?
-BP
I could buy a handful and have my tax billed cleared via losses.. Sweet I tell ya. There needs to be Family Guy episode written about that.
-C
Post by: tyme on November 06, 2007, 11:56:41 AM
Quote
With real estate at least there is a comparable product and market history to use for comparison.
With that ball, however, there was no market comparison. The only way to establish the value of the ball was to sell it. Unless the ball - that specific ball - was sold, there was no reasonable way to judge market value. Until that time, the ball was worth exactly the purchase price paid for it before it was swatted across the outfield and into history.
With that ball, however, there was no market comparison. The only way to establish the value of the ball was to sell it. Unless the ball - that specific ball - was sold, there was no reasonable way to judge market value. Until that time, the ball was worth exactly the purchase price paid for it before it was swatted across the outfield and into history.
Are you saying that there's some arbitrary line drawn on the liquidity scale, such that more liquid assets are taxable and less liquid assets aren't?
Does the preexisting market (of sufficient size) have to be local? Do auctions count? (If a fairly similar item is sold at auction in Russia, can that price be used to assess a poor American sap's taxes?)
Post by: SomeKid on November 06, 2007, 12:33:13 PM
Post by: Balog on November 06, 2007, 12:39:41 PM
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 06, 2007, 01:31:30 PM
Quote
With real estate at least there is a comparable product and market history to use for comparison.
With that ball, however, there was no market comparison. The only way to establish the value of the ball was to sell it. Unless the ball - that specific ball - was sold, there was no reasonable way to judge market value. Until that time, the ball was worth exactly the purchase price paid for it before it was swatted across the outfield and into history.
With that ball, however, there was no market comparison. The only way to establish the value of the ball was to sell it. Unless the ball - that specific ball - was sold, there was no reasonable way to judge market value. Until that time, the ball was worth exactly the purchase price paid for it before it was swatted across the outfield and into history.
Are you saying that there's some arbitrary line drawn on the liquidity scale, such that more liquid assets are taxable and less liquid assets aren't?
Does the preexisting market (of sufficient size) have to be local? Do auctions count? (If a fairly similar item is sold at auction in Russia, can that price be used to assess a poor American sap's taxes?)
What I was trying to illustrate is that real estate values are (usually) based on a pool of directly comparable properties. They will be comparable in size, layout, finish, and location. There is a physical similarity that can be applied, a similarity that includes market value.
The ball, however, is elevated in value only because of an event. That event is unique. There is no "comparable event" on which to base a value. Thus the only way to define the value of the ball is to sell it. Until sold, the only assignable value will be the price originally paid for the ball in pre-event condition. The IRS was trying to assign it a value and tax the owner for that value even though the ball had not been sold and no value (other than an arbitrary guess) had been assigned.
Brad
Post by: Euclidean on November 06, 2007, 01:38:22 PM
Post by: Hawkmoon on November 06, 2007, 04:10:54 PM
Try a Google on "Liberty Dollar"
It's a scam. It's essentially a sophisticated bartar scheme, and the whole deal is that nobody really knows what they're worth.
Also, although I confess to having scanned the linked article (which is probably a Liberty Dollar plant) rather quickly, where did it actually say he was acquitted? If it said that, I missed it.
Post by: Len Budney on November 06, 2007, 04:23:29 PM
What you're all missing is that the coins this guy was using are NOT issued by the United States government.
According to TFA, he was using US coins--old gold and silver US coins. What ticked off the IRS was that he would pay an employee $2,600 per year, using gold $50 coins worth a total of over $40K based on their metallic content. It's hard to see how the government gets off complaining about a man using legal tender to pay his employees. He was acquitted in a jury trial.
They might try to nail him again under the minimum wage laws, though. By his own logic, he's only paying his employees $1.25/hr.
Quote
There is a company that puts this stuff out. Their coins are, technically, not "legal tender." ...Try a Google on "Liberty Dollar." It's a scam.
I'm no fan of the liberty dollars. Basically the guy is operating a mint that charges something like 30% seigniorage, which is outrageous--though not technically a scam. I think that they do scam people when they pass their coins, though, because I don't believe that anyone really understands their 30-second blurb they give when trying to use them to pay bills.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 06, 2007, 04:25:24 PM
Post by: Hawkmoon on November 06, 2007, 06:35:57 PM
The ball, however, is elevated in value only because of an event. That event is unique. There is no "comparable event" on which to base a value. Thus the only way to define the value of the ball is to sell it. Until sold, the only assignable value will be the price originally paid for the ball in pre-event condition. The IRS was trying to assign it a value and tax the owner for that value even though the ball had not been sold and no value (other than an arbitrary guess) had been assigned.
Brad
Brad
You're right, but it wouldn't matter even if there were a way to establish a "comparable." The guy paid either nothing for the ball, or he paid the price of his ticket to the ball game. One or t'other, that's his "basis" in accounting terms for the baseball.
Taxes should not be imposed unless and until he sells it. At that time, if the current tax system hasn't been overturned by then, he would owe capital gains taxes on the difference between the selling price and the "basis."
Post by: Tuco on November 06, 2007, 07:27:32 PM
If you had your hands on one of the $50 pieces, how would you turn it into FRN?
Take said gold piece to your local jeweler, or collectibles shop (coins and stamps - look in ye ole yeller pages).
This dude will weigh the coin, and give a roll of greenbacks based on the day's precious metal prices. If i recall correctly, the coins are minted to a specific weight, so a 50 is valued at ##/100 (0.##) of an ounce.
Be prepared to leave a small percentage of the coin's value based on gold weight in the hands of said money changer.
Post by: Finch on November 06, 2007, 08:08:05 PM
Despite the Paulpraganda, that story rocks.
How is this, the only sentance with Ron Paul's name "Paulpraganda"
Quote
In 1985, Ron Paul and other congressmen challenged our countrys currency system, which was monopolized by Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs)
Rabid I tell you, rabid....
Anyways, I love how the article refers to the currency as Federal Reserve Notes and not dollars, and also makes mention of Article 1 section 8. Good Stuff.
Post by: Euclidean on November 06, 2007, 08:23:30 PM
I'm no fan of the liberty dollars. Basically the guy is operating a mint that charges something like 30% seigniorage, which is outrageous--though not technically a scam. I think that they do scam people when they pass their coins, though, because I don't believe that anyone really understands their 30-second blurb they give when trying to use them to pay bills.
--Len.
--Len.
I'm not going to start buying them either, but I do support what they're trying to do, even though I don't think it will work. The Liberty Dollar people have always, always emphasized their products are not legal tender, but I don't think that's the point. I think the point is that the Federal Reserve system is out of control and that consenting adults should be able to exchange anything they want in commerce. On that end I support them philosophically.
I also question if, in the long term, a currency that's backed by a substance will be viable. I'm quite aware gold and silver are worth more now than they ever have been, but consider the Twilight Zone scenario where we figure out a way to synthesize an effective substitute for either, and there goes the value. Our ratty paper greenbacks would work just fine if they'd just stop printing billions more of them every time they felt like it.
Post by: Warren on November 06, 2007, 08:26:52 PM
Quote
In 1985, Ron Paul and other congressmen challenged our countrys currency system, which was monopolized by Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) the familiar greenbacks in American wallets. The congressmen successfully pursued the Gold Bullion Coin Act, which required the U.S. government to mint and place gold coins in denominations of $50, $25, $10 and $5 into circulation based on demand. The coins are made of 91.67 percent pure gold.
There were no, zero, nada convictions but there were several hung charges.
Quote
Rather, jurors delivered zero guilty verdicts. Three defendants, all workers, were acquitted as well as Kahres mother, who worked as a runner for her sons businesses. Two other defendants were partly acquitted the jury hung on one count each. The jury also hung on all counts faced by Kahre, Loglia and Kahres sister, resulting in mistrials.
Post by: tyme on November 07, 2007, 01:32:33 AM
Post by: atomd on November 07, 2007, 04:57:12 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on November 07, 2007, 04:59:14 AM
Has anyone here ever bought/sold American Eagle gold bullion coins? Since they are issued by the mint and contain a precise amount of pure gold, it seems like it would be safe to buy some. I'm not looking to invest or anything like that. I just think it would be kind of neat to have. My only concern is if I wanted to get rid of one, how much would they skim off the top for profit? Hmmmm
AFAIK, Canadian Maple Leafs are actually a purer gold. There's also Kruggerands and Credit Suisse ingots.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 07, 2007, 05:21:15 AM
Quote
Brad, I'm just mystified how liquid the market has to be, or how comparable a similar item would have to be, before it can be used by the IRS to determine tax liability.
The real estate example was not tied to the IRS, it was a simple representation of using similarity in product to determine a vlue for taxation (in this case property taxes on a local level).
For the baseball, the IRS assigned the ball an arbitrary value and intended to tax the holder on it even though no actual value had been established.
Back to the coin thing...
A lot of people seem to be confused about coinage and who produced it. The United States Mint produces gold coins which ARE legal tender, and are marked in specific denominations - $5, $10, $50, etc. - even though the value of the metal content may be wildly different. There are third-party coin producers which make commemorative coins that are not legal tender anywhere by any government. Then, there are third-party coin producers that make coins which have been designated as legal tender for some country other than the United States.
When you see ads for coins look for the tender designation. Anything that is legal tender for the United States will specifically say so. Coins that are not legal tender in any form often won't say anything about being legal tender, on the coin or in the ad. Coins that have been desginated legal tender somewhere else will usually say something like "Legal Tender in the Bananastan Rebublic" or somesuch.
Brad
Post by: charby on November 07, 2007, 05:35:04 AM
here you go..
Post by: richyoung on November 07, 2007, 11:42:07 AM
Quote
Brad, I'm just mystified how liquid the market has to be, or how comparable a similar item would have to be, before it can be used by the IRS to determine tax liability.
The real estate example was not tied to the IRS, it was a simple representation of using similarity in product to determine a vlue for taxation (in this case property taxes on a local level).
For the baseball, the IRS assigned the ball an arbitrary value and intended to tax the holder on it even though no actual value had been established.
Back to the coin thing...
A lot of people seem to be confused about coinage and who produced it. The United States Mint produces gold coins which ARE legal tender, and are marked in specific denominations - $5, $10, $50, etc. - even though the value of the metal content may be wildly different. There are third-party coin producers which make commemorative coins that are not legal tender anywhere by any government. Then, there are third-party coin producers that make coins which have been designated as legal tender for some country other than the United States.
When you see ads for coins look for the tender designation. Anything that is legal tender for the United States will specifically say so. Coins that are not legal tender in any form often won't say anything about being legal tender, on the coin or in the ad. Coins that have been desginated legal tender somewhere else will usually say something like "Legal Tender in the Bananastan Rebublic" or somesuch.
Brad
Must respectfully point out that per the Constitution, you are wrong. Think about it - the Constitution specifically mentions "dollars" long before any "United States" currency could have been coined, (and there is a reason I use the term, "coined".) By the Constitution, (which can only be altered by ammendmant), only Congress can ".. coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;(Article 1, Section
". This power is further explained in Section 10. "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;..."Just so we are clear - CONGRESS is to "coin" money, AND only "gold and silver coin". Further, CONRESS is to set the ratio of gold to silver, AND assign the value of foriegn coinage - thus making foreign money "legal tender". But still there is the question - what "dolar" is the Constituion refereing to in Ammendmant 7?
"Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
By its use in the ammendment, we know the "dollar" had a common accepted meaning well before the 7TH was passed - well before any signifigant American coinage could have occured.
So a "dollar" is what the term meant at the time the &th was drafted - and that meaning was universally understood to be an approximately 1 ounce coin of 90% or purer silver. While the word "dollar" has German origins, the most common "dollar" in use in the US at the time was the spanish "real". In fact, some reals were marked like a round pizza, so that "change" could be made by cutting it up into halves, quarters, and eights - with either a sharp knife or a hatchet. This practice gave us the "half dollar", quarter, "2 bits, 4 bits, 6 bits, a dollar", and the term 'piece of eight". Also the term, "to break a dollar".
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 07, 2007, 12:42:12 PM
Brad
Post by: tyme on November 07, 2007, 02:20:36 PM
Meanwhile, Article 1 section 8 seems to contain a paradox:
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
If only Congress can coin money, and assuming "money" means something that is legal tender (you can use it to pay a preexisting debt to someone else, and they have to accept it), how can Congress set a value on foreign currency? Since they didn't coin it, it can't be legal tender, can it?
Post by: richyoung on November 10, 2007, 04:59:13 PM
Richyoung, I don't understand what you're arguing relative to what Brad wrote.
Meanwhile, Article 1 section 8 seems to contain a paradox:
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
If only Congress can coin money, and assuming "money" means something that is legal tender (you can use it to pay a preexisting debt to someone else, and they have to accept it), how can Congress set a value on foreign currency? Since they didn't coin it, it can't be legal tender, can it?
Meanwhile, Article 1 section 8 seems to contain a paradox:
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
If only Congress can coin money, and assuming "money" means something that is legal tender (you can use it to pay a preexisting debt to someone else, and they have to accept it), how can Congress set a value on foreign currency? Since they didn't coin it, it can't be legal tender, can it?
If its gold or silver, yes it can. What do you think the colonies used for money before signifigant amounts of US coinage occured? Primarily Spanish and British coins.It was the sole power of Congress to say that 1 Spanish Real = 1 U.S. dollar = 0.6 Pond Sterling. (or whatever) It is also up to congress to set the reletive values of Gold and silver.
Now, here is what I'm arguing reletive to what Brad wrote:
They taught ME in school that the Constitution could only be changed by the ammendment process, or a Constitutional Convention. To my knowledge, there has never been a Constitutional Convention since ratification. That leaves the Ammendment process as the only other way to alter the "Supremem Law of the Land". Again, to my knowledge, there has never been a Constitutional ammendment that removed Congress power to coin money OR to make anything other than gold or silver coin legal "money". If that be the case, (and I submit it is....) then the "denomination" coins issued by Congress are in fact the ONLY "legal money". available. Federal Reserve notes don;t come from any branch of the Government - it is a privatte company. It's "notes" are in fact DEBT INSTRUMENTS = not "money". Essentially, they are checks. Of course, it says on them "this note is legal tender for all debts public and private" - but I can put a Cadillac emblem on a Hyndai - its still a Hyndai, despite the emblem. Money has to have intrinsic value. FRNs don't. A stamp has more intrinsic value....
Post by: gunsmith on November 11, 2007, 07:28:44 PM
that are interesting if you more of a right wing loon then I am.
& thats pretty far out there.
I just want to say (for the record) that the IRS might monitor
the internet and I think that they're all swell
people and their children are really cute.
Post by: Creeping Incrementalism on November 13, 2007, 06:47:14 AM
Interesting side note: Could one use this ruling as a way to play games with investments? Suppose I spent $806 to purchase a 1-ounce gold coin with a face value of $50; could I then use the face value of the coin to justify that as a $756 loss on investment, and use that loss to offset gains elsewhere?
-BP
I could buy a handful and have my tax billed cleared via losses.. Sweet I tell ya. There needs to be Family Guy episode written about that.
-C
You two are joking around, but I think you still missed the point in the article where it says they still have to pay taxes on the fair market value of the gold they received. The trial was over whether they would have to, in addition, go to jail over the scheme.
Quote from: richyoung
If that be the case, (and I submit it is....) then the "denomination" coins issued by Congress are in fact the ONLY "legal money". available.
No, because Congress designated some of its minting power to the Federal Reserve. And I don't want to be anal or sound condescending on your spelling, but if you are going to go on about the Constitution, learn how to spell "amendment"--there is only one "m" in "amend".
----------------------------------
I think the guy who started this scheme is a colossal dips-t. Anyone with a little knowledge of how the IRS works-- as the "experts" he consulted should have had--would have known they would smack the hammer down on this guy and his employees eventually. They are lucky most of them didn't receive a criminal sentence, and they still may yet receive one. Furthermore, they went through the expense and emotional trauma of a trial, and still have to pay the back taxes they owe, plus interest.
Then there's also the fact that someone else brought up in this thread that by the business owner's own logic, he was violating the federal minimum wage law. And still there is the "paying your fair share" part of this. Surely the employees were selling the coins at fair market value, not face value. So that means all of us that follow the rules end up taking up their slack.
All this because Ron Paul wanted to call the coins "legal tender" and nostalgically put artificially low dollar values on them.
Post by: richyoung on November 14, 2007, 05:00:33 AM
No, because Congress designated some of its minting power to the Federal Reserve. And I don't want to be anal or sound condescending on your spelling, but if you are going to go on about the Constitution, learn how to spell "amendment"--there is only one "m" in "amend".
Good point on the spelling - not my strong suit. You are, however, wrong oin the rest. Congress doesn't have the authority to "designate" its minting power to a non-government entity. That would require a constitutional ... amendment. Plus no "minting" is occuring - only paper printing and slug manufactury.
Post by: Len Budney on November 14, 2007, 05:17:10 AM
Congress doesn't have the authority to "designate" its minting power to a non-government entity. That would require a constitutional ... amendment.
Exactly. Indeed, Congress has no power in the Constitution to delegate any of its authority, which is why all regulatory agencies are unconstitutional. They're a force multiplier for statists, though, because one law (empowering the agency) spawns thousands of laws (euphemistically called "regulations").
--Len.
Post by: richyoung on November 14, 2007, 09:44:23 AM
Congress doesn't have the authority to "designate" its minting power to a non-government entity. That would require a constitutional ... amendment.
Exactly. Indeed, Congress has no power in the Constitution to delegate any of its authority, which is why all regulatory agencies are unconstitutional. They're a force multiplier for statists, though, because one law (empowering the agency) spawns thousands of laws (euphemistically called "regulations").
--Len.
...what you said, plus 1, with deluxe carrying case....
Post by: Creeping Incrementalism on November 15, 2007, 11:08:11 AM
No, because Congress designated some of its minting power to the Federal Reserve.
Congress doesn't have the authority to "designate" its minting power to a non-government entity. That would require a constitutional ... amendment. Plus no "minting" is occuring - only paper printing and slug manufactury.
The Fed is effectively a part of the gov't for the purposes of monetary policy, since the gov't appoints the people who make the decisions.
I'd like you to show me that those who wrote the constitution meant only coins--that they specifically excluded paper currency, since the gov't has issued them since the Civil War, I believe. I don't know for certain that you are wrong, but I'd be very surprised if you could show me something to prove that you are right.
Post by: Len Budney on November 15, 2007, 11:58:49 AM
Congress doesn't have the authority to "designate" its minting power to a non-government entity.
The Fed is effectively a part of the gov't for the purposes of monetary policy, since the gov't appoints the people who make the decisions.
No. That's wrong on every level, but the most important one is that Congress has the power to issue currency. They can't delegate that power. So for your argument to fly, you'd have to be claiming that the Fed is effectively part of Congress, which is clearly absurd. Congressmen are apportioned based on population, and Congress can't appoint extra congressmen.
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 15, 2007, 12:07:51 PM
Quote
They can't delegate that power.
Actually, they can.
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on November 15, 2007, 12:11:53 PM
Quote
They can't delegate that power.
Actually, they can.
What is this, a playground? Can't! Can!
The Constitution gives them the authority, and doesn't give them the power to delegate that authority. QED
Post by: roo_ster on November 15, 2007, 12:52:56 PM
So, unless some member of Congress personally hammers out a coin with their own lawyerly hands, the currency is worthless?
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 15, 2007, 01:04:51 PM
Took me all of about, oh, ten seconds to find these.
U.S. v. Rickman
Quote
U.S. v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, C.A.Kan. 1980:
Federal Reserve Notes in which the defendant, charged with failure to file federal income tax returns, was paid were lawful money within the meaning of the United States Constitution. 26 USCA ?7203; USCA Const. Art. 1, ?8, cl. 5. U.S. v. Wangrund, 533 F.2d 495; C.A.Cal. 1976
The statute establishing Federal Reserve Notes as legal tender for all debts, public and private, including taxes, is within the constitutional authority of Congress; thus the defendant could not overturn his conviction on two counts of wilful failure to make an income tax return on the theory that he did not receive money since checks he received as compensation for his services could be cashed only for Federal Reserve Notes which were not redeemable in specie. 26 USCA (IRC 1954) ??61, 7203; USCA Const. art. 1, ?8; Coinage Act of 1965, ?102; 31 USCA ?392.
Federal Reserve Notes in which the defendant, charged with failure to file federal income tax returns, was paid were lawful money within the meaning of the United States Constitution. 26 USCA ?7203; USCA Const. Art. 1, ?8, cl. 5. U.S. v. Wangrund, 533 F.2d 495; C.A.Cal. 1976
The statute establishing Federal Reserve Notes as legal tender for all debts, public and private, including taxes, is within the constitutional authority of Congress; thus the defendant could not overturn his conviction on two counts of wilful failure to make an income tax return on the theory that he did not receive money since checks he received as compensation for his services could be cashed only for Federal Reserve Notes which were not redeemable in specie. 26 USCA (IRC 1954) ??61, 7203; USCA Const. art. 1, ?8; Coinage Act of 1965, ?102; 31 USCA ?392.
Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mortgage Company
Quote
Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mortgage Company, 615 F.Supp. 890, affirmed 787 F.2d 596. D.C.Ind. 1985.
Federal Reserve notes are legal tender.
Federal Reserve notes are legal tender.
Ginter v. Southern
Quote
Ginter v. Southern, 611 F.2d 1226, certiorari denied 100 S.Ct 2946, 446 US 967, 64 L.E.d.2d 827. C.A.Ark. 1979.
Tax protestor's claims concerning the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve System, Internal Revenue Code and establishment of tax court were so frivolous as not to require discussion and detail. USCA Const. Amends. 5, 13; 28 USCA ?1346(a)(1); 26 USCA (IRC 1954) ?6532(a), 7422(a).
Tax protestor's claims concerning the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve System, Internal Revenue Code and establishment of tax court were so frivolous as not to require discussion and detail. USCA Const. Amends. 5, 13; 28 USCA ?1346(a)(1); 26 USCA (IRC 1954) ?6532(a), 7422(a).
U.S. v. Schmitz
Quote
U.S. v. Schmitz, 542 F.2d 782 certiorari denied 97 S.Ct. 1134, 429 US 1105, 51 L.Ed.2d 556. C.A.Cal. 1976.
Federal Reserve Notes constitute legal tender and are taxable dollars. USCA Const. Art. 1, ?10.
Federal Reserve Notes constitute legal tender and are taxable dollars. USCA Const. Art. 1, ?10.
Milam v. U.S.
Quote
Milam v. U.S., 524 F.2d 629. C.A.Cal. 1974.
The statute which delegates to the Federal Reserve System the power to issue circulating notes for money borrowed and the power to define the quality and force of those notes as currency is valid ... Although golden eagles, double eagles, and silver dollars were lovely to look at and delightful to hold, the holder of a $50 Federal Reserve Bank Note, although entitled to redeem his note, was not entitled to do so in precious metal. Federal Reserve Act, ?16, 12 USCA ?411; Coinage Act of 1965, ?102, 31 USCA ?392
The statute which delegates to the Federal Reserve System the power to issue circulating notes for money borrowed and the power to define the quality and force of those notes as currency is valid ... Although golden eagles, double eagles, and silver dollars were lovely to look at and delightful to hold, the holder of a $50 Federal Reserve Bank Note, although entitled to redeem his note, was not entitled to do so in precious metal. Federal Reserve Act, ?16, 12 USCA ?411; Coinage Act of 1965, ?102, 31 USCA ?392
The debate over whether paper money is "real" or not is a useless waste of time. Okay, so you take replace a paper $1 bill with a coin stamped with $1. But what have you really accomplished? Not a friggin thing (that is, unless you list "Wasting A Bunch of Time On A Non-Issue" on your resume). You have achieved literal, though judicially superceded, compliance with the constitution at the expense of a convenient and popular form of money. Yippee.
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on November 15, 2007, 05:33:40 PM
Len:
So, unless some member of Congress personally hammers out a coin with their own lawyerly hands, the currency is worthless?
So, unless some member of Congress personally hammers out a coin with their own lawyerly hands, the currency is worthless?
Of course not; that's not at issue. They can't delegate the legislative power to, e.g., set the federal discount rate or to decide how much money to print. They can hire someone to do the actual printing, but not the decision-making which is specifically authorized to Congress and nobody else.
Supreme-court rulings are irrelevant, BTW. They would also consider the EPA or other regulatory bodies constitutional. They're full of it.
--Len.
Post by: MechAg94 on November 15, 2007, 06:03:57 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on November 15, 2007, 06:05:57 PM
Supreme-court rulings are irrelevant, BTW.
Yeah, tell us another one.
Post by: Len Budney on November 15, 2007, 06:28:29 PM
They are not delegating "legislative power". They are delegating narrow regulatory authority...
So they can make "regulations," but not "laws." What a relief! After all, a "law" is a decree which will be enforced by the government using its police powers, and could include fines or prison for violators. But these aren't "laws," so there's nothing to worry about. Whew!
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on November 15, 2007, 06:30:27 PM
Supreme-court rulings are irrelevant, BTW.
Yeah, tell us another one.
Yawn. Lets talk Roe v. Wade or Dred Scott or Kelo v New London. And when they get around to denying that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, as sooner or later they will, we can toss back a couple brews before we admit that we were wrong all along, and go turn in our guns.
--Len.
Post by: K Frame on November 15, 2007, 06:54:09 PM
You know, reading through the powers that the Constitution grants to Congress, one finds this little tidbit...
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers...
Interesting.
One looks that phrase, taken straight from the Constitution, and then compares it to what Congress did when it passed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913...
Seems to be a perfectly Constitutional exercise of a power granted to Congress by the Constitution.
Post by: Len Budney on November 15, 2007, 07:00:42 PM
You know, reading through the powers that the Constitution grants to Congress, one finds this little tidbit...
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Not so little. That, along with the "general welfare" clause, are the two biggest loopholes through which the federal government wriggles out of all restraint. Hamilton's invocation of that clause to (wait for it!) charter a federal bank, proves that Hamilton intended just such an expansion of powers, despite his hypocritical arguments to the contrary in the Federalist Papers.
I'm afraid I go with Jefferson on this one. Big surprise there.
--Len.
Post by: K Frame on November 15, 2007, 07:15:14 PM
In the Constitution???!!!???
Heaven fofend!
What does that tell us, then, about the Framers?
Possibly that they were a huge pack of asshats who couldn't get their heads out of their rectums long enough to see the horrific malaise that their Constitution would bring upon the United States?
Or perhaps very intelligent men, many of whom were trained attorneys, who knew the value, validity, and even necessity of loopholes?
While in some ways I agree with the abrogational desires of some posters on a number of topics, I often wonder if their view of the ultra strict, ultra restrictive interpretation of the Constitution isn't in its own way just as dangerous and as destructive as those who view the Constitution as license to do just about anything at all.
The Founders included a number of mechanisms by which laws and powers granted to the Central government could grow. I just find it very hard to believe that much of this wasn't intentional on their parts.
Post by: Len Budney on November 16, 2007, 02:30:50 AM
Loopholes? In the Constitution???!!!??? Heaven fofend!
Have you read the Federalist Papers? Hamilton specifically denied that either of those clauses could be used to expand federal powers. He personally then attempted to use them to expand federal powers.
Quote
Possibly that they were a huge pack of asshats...
Most of them didn't intend for their words to be misconstrued as they later were. A few federalists like Hamilton intended to misconstrue them, because they specifically wanted a strong central government to subvert the authority of the states--which is why they discarded the Articles of Confederation, contrary to the explicit instructions given them by their respective state legislatures. Honestly, have you studied the history here?
Quote
...who couldn't get their heads out of their rectums long enough to see the horrific malaise that their Constitution would bring upon the United States?
They predicted it in great detail in the federalist papers, among other primary sources. They even predicted, e.g., the abuse of the general welfare clause--although Hamilton hastened to dismiss that concern. Heads up their rumps? Not half. They were practically prophetic.
Quote
Or perhaps very intelligent men, many of whom were trained attorneys, who knew the value, validity, and even necessity of loopholes?
Not according to their own words. Give them a read sometime.
--Len.
Post by: Creeping Incrementalism on November 16, 2007, 06:57:46 AM
Quote from: Len Budney
They predicted it in great detail in the federalist papers, among other primary sources. They even predicted, e.g., the abuse of the general welfare clause--although Hamilton hastened to dismiss that concern. Heads up their rumps? Not half. They were practically prophetic.
If they foresaw "abuse" of the general welfare clause, I would say that would mean that organizations such as the Fed are legal, and the founders recognized the legal use of this clause could lead to big/more powerful gov't than they liked, but the Fed is still legal.
I think they understood the limitation that a constitution, to be workable at all as the supreme law of the land with day-to-day laws working under it, has to have room for expansion of these day-to-day laws that can legally lead to big/powerful government if the people so desire, as long as it doesn't violate the human and civil rights laid out in the Bill of Rights.
I don't know if there is any other way to do it. Either you have a static constitution that falls completely apart as times change, or you have one that maintains civil & human rights and the split powers of governments, but can still grow very large. Maybe a constitutional amendment that limits gov't spending as a percentage of GDP except in time of declared war, and bans a few specific things like welfare, would do it. But those ideas weren't around back then, and they didn't think to use them to limit gov't power, even if they might have if they could have seen the future.
Post by: Len Budney on November 16, 2007, 07:04:09 AM
Quote from: Len Budney
They predicted it in great detail in the federalist papers, among other primary sources. They even predicted, e.g., the abuse of the general welfare clause--although Hamilton hastened to dismiss that concern. Heads up their rumps? Not half. They were practically prophetic.
If they foresaw "abuse" of the general welfare clause, I would say that would mean that organizations such as the Fed are legal, and the founders recognized the legal use of this clause could lead to big/more powerful gov't than they liked, but the Fed is still legal.
You mean, when they said "Nobody could be so malign, venal or stupid to do the following..." they really meant, "We fully intend for our successors to do the following, wink wink, nudge nudge"?
If so, the revolution ended too early. Hopefully next time around we won't make that mistake, and the Hamiltons of that future time will get the cigarette and blindfold before they can do much damage.
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 16, 2007, 07:05:12 AM
Post by: Creeping Incrementalism on November 16, 2007, 07:17:28 AM
Quote from: Len Budney
They predicted it in great detail in the federalist papers, among other primary sources. They even predicted, e.g., the abuse of the general welfare clause--although Hamilton hastened to dismiss that concern. Heads up their rumps? Not half. They were practically prophetic.
If they foresaw "abuse" of the general welfare clause, I would say that would mean that organizations such as the Fed are legal, and the founders recognized the legal use of this clause could lead to big/more powerful gov't than they liked, but the Fed is still legal.
You mean, when they said "Nobody could be so malign, venal or stupid to do the following..." they really meant, "We fully intend for our successors to do the following, wink wink, nudge nudge"?
No, they meant "Nobody will hopefully be that dumb, but it might happen anyway." Because I don't think there was any other way to write the constitution.
Quote from: fistfull
I would prefer to see the IRS illegally kicked in the gonads. Who's with me?
I'd rather see them turn their attention to employers who pay illegals under the table, and don't contribute to payroll taxes. Other than getting rid of them and the income tax completely.
Post by: richyoung on November 16, 2007, 07:54:34 AM
"The Constitution gives them the authority, and doesn't give them the power to delegate that authority."
You know, reading through the powers that the Constitution grants to Congress, one finds this little tidbit...
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers...
Interesting.
One looks that phrase, taken straight from the Constitution, and then compares it to what Congress did when it passed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913...
Seems to be a perfectly Constitutional exercise of a power granted to Congress by the Constitution.
You know, reading through the powers that the Constitution grants to Congress, one finds this little tidbit...
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers...
Interesting.
One looks that phrase, taken straight from the Constitution, and then compares it to what Congress did when it passed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913...
Seems to be a perfectly Constitutional exercise of a power granted to Congress by the Constitution.
A LAW cannot alter the CONSTITUTION, which is the supreme law of the land, nor can it change ANYTHING IN IT. ONLY a constitutional convention or an amendment can do that. Because the CONSTITUTION demands that Congress coin the money, and that the States make only gold and silver coin "legal money" (and not coin money), the Congress has to do that, or pass an amendment. (At least, thats my high school civics understanding - that if a law conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution wins...). Can you refer me to ANY such passed amendment?
Didn;t think so.
On the other hand, if laws CAN trump the Constitution, what, in your opinion, is stopping Congress from simply changing their terms of office to "life"?
Post by: richyoung on November 16, 2007, 07:56:47 AM
I would prefer to see the IRS illegally kicked in the gonads. Who's with me?
What he said, plus 10,, with mink lined permium corinthian leather carrying case with gold handles....
Post by: K Frame on November 16, 2007, 08:01:17 AM
Yes, I have read the Federalist Papers.
Nice collection of essays, but they legal documents of governance.... how?
Oh, wait, they're not.
They're individuals who are giving their own PERSONAL viewpoint on how the Constitution should, and should not, be applied.
Notice I say should, not would.
Why?
Because the very men who framed the document, and included the bill of rights into it, immediately set out to find ways to bypass it when it was inconvenient.
These "immortal Gods of marble magnificance" set their own precedents for using those little loopholes and, in some cases, passed laws directly contrary to the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights within years of them being ratified. Odd how you'd claim that they were virtual prophets, but that they did absolutely NOTHING to close down those very loopholes and prevent the very thing that they predicted. As I said, that's a very firm indication that these men were capable of planting their heads very firmly up their asses. It always amuses me to no end when someone holds up the Founders/Framers as some godhead group of imutable logic and reason. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
And it wasn't just the strong central government players who bent the Constitution to their ideals of what it should be, or what should be done...
Ever hear of Thomas Jefferson? The main advocate of small, disassociated central government?
Funny how Mr. "Small Government" jumped up and grabbed the Louisiana Purchase by interpreting the Constitition to allow that EXPANDED use of Federal power. But, maybe I'm reading a different Constitution than the one you have. I don't see any clause in there that permits the outright PURCHASE of land to add to the territorial boundaries of the United States.
Funny that you'd ask if I've studied the history here...
Of the two of us, I'm now 100% sure that I've not only studied the history of these events, I'm the one who actually UNDERSTANDS what the Framers did in drafting the Constitution and how they later applied the loopholes that they INTENTIONALLY crafted into the document.
Post by: K Frame on November 16, 2007, 08:03:57 AM
Please tell me where I claimed that Congress passed laws ALTERING the Constitution?
I didn't.
They used the EXISTING LANGUAGE in the Constitution, language included by the Framers, to pass laws that SUPPORTED the powers granted to the body.
That's not a difficult concept to grasp.
Or at least it shouldn't be.
Let's try this again...
Here is the SPECIFIC section of the Constitution in question:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
You see that? To MAKE LAWS WHICH SHALL BE NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYI9NG INTO EXECUTION THE FOREGOING POWERS..."
That phrase right there gives Congress the power to make a law that delegates monetary management to a body that was created in yet another law.
Post by: richyoung on November 16, 2007, 08:17:27 AM
"A LAW cannot alter the CONSTITUTION, which is the supreme law of the land, nor can it change ANYTHING IN IT."
Please tell me where I claimed that Congress passed laws ALTERING the Constitution?
I didn't.
They used the EXISTING LANGUAGE in the Constitution, language included by the Framers, to pass laws that SUPPORTED the powers granted to the body.
That's not a difficult concept to grasp.
Or at least it shouldn't be.
Please tell me where I claimed that Congress passed laws ALTERING the Constitution?
I didn't.
They used the EXISTING LANGUAGE in the Constitution, language included by the Framers, to pass laws that SUPPORTED the powers granted to the body.
That's not a difficult concept to grasp.
Or at least it shouldn't be.
A LAW can not remove or change the requirement for gold and silver coinage. Just like changing the method of electing Senators required an amendment, so would this change. This also is not a difficult concept to grasp.
Post by: K Frame on November 16, 2007, 08:45:28 AM
If you had read my messages you'd get that.
I'm talking about the concept of the Federal Reserve as a whole and whether or not that constitutes delegation of authority via a means not allowed by the Constitution, not the production method.
Post by: Len Budney on November 16, 2007, 09:06:11 AM
Nice collection of essays, but they legal documents of governance.... how? Oh, wait, they're not.
Unless you're a Jeffersonian who believes in original intent: they're irrefutable evidence of the original intent. Any judge who "interprets" the constitution contrary to the crystal clear statements of intent by its authors is a domestic enemy of the republic.
Quote
...I'm the one who actually UNDERSTANDS what the Framers did in drafting the Constitution and how they later applied the loopholes that they INTENTIONALLY crafted into the document.
You're justifying criminal behavior today by arguing that the original framers were also criminals. If you are correct, then you've merely proven that the Constitution must be scrapped and the current government abolished, to be replaced with something else. Preferably no government at all, but I'd settle for the Articles of Confederation.
However, you do Jefferson a disservice. He agonized over the Louisiana purchase, and also over acting against the Barbary pirates. You can argue that he made a mistake, but you can't argue that he cynically drafted the Constitution in order to create a strong central government under color of creating a weak one. The criminal you're after is Hamilton. I'll readily stipulate that Hamilton acted with criminal intent.
--Len.
Post by: v35 on November 16, 2007, 03:43:35 PM
I'm quite aware gold and silver are worth more now than they ever have been,
Gold and silver may be worth more in US dollars than they've ever been. A good case can be made that the worth of an ounce of gold or silver has been constant while the value of the dollar has decreased. I would make the converse argument: the value of US currency is worth less now than it has ever been, thanks to out of control spending by Congress and unprecedented infusions of cash by the Fed.
Quote
but consider the Twilight Zone scenario where we figure out a way to synthesize an effective substitute for either, and there goes the value.
Gold and silver are elements. Synthesizing elements from other substances would entail precise manipulation of subatomic particles. IANAP (I am not a physicist)
but it seems to me that nothing short of atomic fusion would be required. Even if that could be accomplished, the energy requirements would likely exceed the value of the synthesized product. Still, if it were possible to synthesize any element you wanted I think it would be a lot more fun to synthesize food, shelter, companionship, entertainment, fast cars and gas to power them, eliminating the need for money altogether. Kinda like Second Life without Linden Dollars.Jesus may have turned water into wine. Until He returns we'll have to settle for what gold and silver is already around.
Quote
Our ratty paper greenbacks would work just fine if they'd just stop printing billions more of them every time they felt like it.
Totally correct! Unfortunately no civilization in the entire history of mankind using fiat currency has ever been able to resist the enormous urge to print more of it, ultimately resulting in what ought now to be the predictable cycle of hyperinflation, devaluation, and collapse. Tell me what mystical qualities Americans have that makes us immune to this inexorable path.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 17, 2007, 01:50:48 PM
Quote
Unfortunately no civilization in the entire history of mankind using fiat currency has ever been able to resist the enormous urge to print more of it, ultimately resulting in what ought now to be the predictable cycle of hyperinflation, devaluation, and collapse.
So what you're saying is that the fed prints money on a whim and throws it into circulation just because they can? You really should study up on U.S. monetary policy.
Brad
Post by: WeedWhacker on November 18, 2007, 03:41:38 AM
So what you're saying is that the fed prints money on a whim and throws it into circulation just because they can? You really should study up on U.S. monetary policy.
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of the Fed? I can't speak for their motivation...
As for what they're doing, let's look at two historical US coins. The first is a 1964 half dollar, the last year they were minted in a 10/90% copper/silver alloy. The face value of the half-dollar is (carry the one...) fifty cents. The spot price of the ~0.35oz of silver in the coin is roughly five dollars, which shows a more than 90% debasement of the dollar's value since 1964. Pick any other year and while the percentage may be lower, it will still show a huge downward trend.
The second coin would be a 1913 gold half-eagle. Face value of five bucks, gold content of ~0.26oz. At a spot price of around $200 for the gold content, that's over a 97% debasement of the dollar since the introduction of a central bank.
What amount of "good" could possibly justify an organization which has stolen 97% of the value of every dollar since its inception?
-edit
speeling
Post by: WeedWhacker on November 18, 2007, 03:46:35 AM
No criminal charges stuck, but that was because the jury found no intent to break laws. There was no precident set to allow this or any other business to pay employees with US legal tender in gold coins, and pay taxes on the face value.
This is really a B.S. copout, as this case really should have forced the IRS' hand in either acknowledging the tremendous devaluation of the dollar and cause the US Mint to mark their coins appropriately, or to allow gold money to make a comeback.
Post by: K Frame on November 21, 2007, 04:31:34 PM
Anyone who argues that Jefferson drafted the Constitution is a moron.
He was in France when it was drafted.
"Unless you're a Jeffersonian who believes in original intent: they're irrefutable evidence of the original intent."
Actually, they're TWO men's interpretation of the original intent of the Federalists. Not all of the Federalists were lockstep behind Hamilton and Madison in their interpretations of what the Constitution was, or would be.
If one tries to argue strict Federalist intent based on the essays of these two men alone, the Bill of Rights is completely out the window because it was NOT original intent. Madison saw no need for a specific Bill of Rights, and in fact stridently argued against it, and only later agreeing to it as a political expediency to ensure passage of the Constitution.
"However, you do Jefferson a disservice. He agonized over the Louisiana purchase..."
Oh really? I know not. Jefferson's only reason for "agonizing" over the Louisiana purchase was because it would come perilously close to using up all of the spare cash of the Federal government. In fact, it required the United States to borrow money from Great Britain. When presented with the opportunity to purchase the territory he didn't spend any time agonizing whether the Federal purchase of the territory would be contrary to the Constitution. At best he was worried not about Constitutional issues but of issues of his own personal standing inside the party that he was leading. Mr. "Agrarianism, no National Bank, and Small Government" didn't waste any time at all exercising power that the Constitution didn't give him to do what the Constitution didn't specifically say he could do and thereby broadly expanding the scope of power of the Federal Goverment that he so clearly feared and despised. Given Jefferson's adherence to the principles of the Age of Enlightenment and his personal interests, I think an excellent case can be made in claiming that Jefferson was more enamored with the opportunity for new discoveries in the largely unexplored west.
"Any judge who "interprets" the constitution contrary to the crystal clear statements of intent by its authors is a domestic enemy of the republic."
So, when are you going to gain the courage to cast of the shackles of oppressive government and free all of us from our bondage? Come on, Pol Pot, we NEED you...
Post by: Len Budney on November 21, 2007, 08:29:58 PM
"However, you do Jefferson a disservice. He agonized over the Louisiana purchase..."
Oh really? I know not. Jefferson's only reason for "agonizing" over the Louisiana purchase was because it would come perilously close to using up all of the spare cash of the Federal government...
Oh really? I know not. Jefferson's only reason for "agonizing" over the Louisiana purchase was because it would come perilously close to using up all of the spare cash of the Federal government...
That's funny. Jefferson personally said the opposite in a letter to Wilson Cary Nicholas dated September 7, 1803. There he states clearly that he felt the purchase exceeded constitutional authority, and required an amendment. He decided in the end to do it anyway, but that's a far cry from the picture you paint in which his only concern was coming up with funds.
Quote
"Any judge who "interprets" the constitution contrary to the crystal clear statements of intent by its authors is a domestic enemy of the republic."
So, when are you going to gain the courage to cast of the shackles of oppressive government and free all of us from our bondage? Come on, Pol Pot, we NEED you...
So, when are you going to gain the courage to cast of the shackles of oppressive government and free all of us from our bondage? Come on, Pol Pot, we NEED you...
I have no interest in freeing you or anyone else. You're going to have to free yourself, or continue in slavery. The majority will choose the latter. Pathetically, many of them will do so while self-righteously declaring themselves free.
--Len.