HJR-192, Gold Redemption and Lawful Money

[PANICPASS]

I thought section 5118 was the codified section for HJR 192 ?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1_31notes.html


According to the above link, no code section of the USC relating to HJR 192 has been repealed.

Repealed or not repealed, the damage has already been done. The only way things are going to change is for Congress to take its power back. The Congress surrendered control of the public purse to the President on January 30, 1934. At the President's request the Congress passed a law vesting in the Federal government absolute title to all that gold which people had been obliged to exchange for gold standard paper dollars the year before. If anything should be repealed it is the Gold Reserve Act of January 30, 1934.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The provisions of the Gold Clause Resolution of 1933 ("HJR 192") were repealed in 1977; gold clauses attempted to be introduced into contracts after 1933 are still null and void, but, from the date of the 1977 repeal, any gold clauses that were in place before 1933 are now revived (I think not many of those contracts are still in effect) and new contracts with gold clauses can be made.

Shoonra, that bit underlined makes no sense. Either a gold clause is in a contract or it is not. The word "attempted" has no place in that sentence; unless you can provide explanation of why you inserted it there.

As to the remainder, are you are stating that HJR-192 is in effect today, but only certain provisions?

[amenmesse]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

Repealed or not repealed, the damage has already been done. The only way things are going to change is for Congress to take its power back. The Congress surrendered control of the public purse to the President on January 30, 1934. At the President's request the Congress passed a law vesting in the Federal government absolute title to all that gold which people had been obliged to exchange for gold standard paper dollars the year before. If anything should be repealed it is the Gold Reserve Act of January 30, 1934.

These gold discussions are half attempts. Silver was still available to meet the needs of lawful money up until the sixties. The purpose of lawful money was to pass a complete title. Complete title makes allodial titles.

FDRs Congress created a caesership or gubernatorial relationship. This is why we have gubernatorial elections which represent the popular sovereignty vote.
"Gubernatorial is latin for helmsman."

"The romans treated the state as a ship." Mommsen

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

Shoonra, that bit underlined makes no sense. Either a gold clause is in a contract or it is not. The word "attempted" has no place in that sentence; unless you can provide explanation of why you inserted it there.

The effective repealer of the Gold Clause Resolution of 1933 is the Act of Oct. 28, 1977, PL 95-147, 91 Stat. 1229. It revives gold clauses in contracts prior to the 1933 Resolution, and it permits new contracts - those made after Oct. 28, 1977 - to contain gold clauses, but it does not disturb the statement of the 1933 Resolution to the effect that public policy is against gold clauses in contracts made between 1933 and 1977.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The effective repealer of the Gold Clause Resolution of 1933 is the Act of Oct. 28, 1977, PL 95-147, 91 Stat. 1229. It revives gold clauses in contracts prior to the 1933 Resolution, and it permits new contracts - those made after Oct. 28, 1977 - to contain gold clauses, but it does not disturb the statement of the 1933 Resolution to the effect that public policy is against gold clauses in contracts made between 1933 and 1977.

OK. So the effect is still on any contract with a gold clause which was signed by parties between 1933-1977 and valid to date. Since you did not comment on my other question, I take it that all other provisions of HJR-192 are in effect.

amenmesse, although the discussion on gold only addresses 1/2 the equation, today both gold and silver share the same status when attempting to exchange legal tender for lawful money.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by amenmesse

The purpose of lawful money was to pass a complete title.

No, the expression "lawful money" exists only the 1862 law creating United States Notes. Gold and silver coin were not declared lawful money and, judging from the Trebilcock decision, United States Notes, declared to be lawful money, were not automatically convertible to gold. The expression is therefore applied only to paper money, evidently to show it had legality equal to gold and silver.

[palani]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

No, the expression "lawful money" exists only the 1862 law creating United States Notes. Gold and silver coin were no declared lawful money and, judging from the Trebilcock decision, United States Notes, declared to be lawful money, were not automatically convertible to gold. The expression is therefore applied only to paper money, evidently to show it had legality equal to gold and silver.

LAWFUL. That which is not forbidden by law. Id omne licitum est, quod non est legibus prohibitum, q

"Lawful money" would then be "money which is not forbidden by law". Of course, "law" requires honest weights and measures so paper money would not be lawful as it is forbidden.

If in doubt on this matter I might be willing to sell you a piece of paper that represents a bushel of oats. It might not be as nutritious as the real thing though.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

No, the expression "lawful money" exists only the 1862 law creating United States Notes. Gold and silver coin were no declared lawful money and, judging from the Trebilcock decision, United States Notes, declared to be lawful money, were not automatically convertible to gold. The expression is therefore applied only to paper money, evidently to show it had legality equal to gold and silver.

Indeed. Lawful money is confined by Congress to be US notes.

Originally Posted by Palani

"Lawful money" would then be "money which is not forbidden by law". Of course, "law" requires honest weights and measures so paper money would not be lawful as it is forbidden.

If in doubt on this matter I might be willing to sell you a piece of paper that represents a bushel of oats. It might not be as nutritious as the real thing though.

That truth is during no emergency. We have been in a state of emergency in America since March 28, 1861. And therefore Shoonra described US notes eloquently as inelastic. The only thing that makes elastic currency like private credit from the Fed seem lawful is that endorsement of that private credit bonds the currency increase of fractional lending.


Thanks again Shoonra,


David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

I would assume that the term "lawful money" was applied to paper United States Notes to indicate that they were legal tender -- that is, money created by law rather than by market forces (like precious metal) , effectively fiat money since United States Notes were not guaranteed convertible to gold or silver. According to Nussbaum's Law of Money, this seems to have been the intended usage.

Going back to the business about the repeal of "HJHR 192", this was in the last paragraph of Public Law 95-147, Oct. 28, 1977, 91 Stat. 1227, "An act to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to invest public moneys and for other purposes."

Sec. 3(c) {at 91 Stat 1229} said:

The joint resolution entitled "Joint resolution to assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States," approved June 5, 1933 (31 USC sec. 463), shall not apply to obligations issued on or after the date of enactment of this section.

This made it possible to include valid and enforceable gold clauses in contracts, beginning as of Oct 28, 1977. Apparently another public law revived those gold clauses that had existed prior to June 5, 1933. As far as I know, gold clauses in contracts made between the dates of the 1933 and 1977 laws were and remain unenforceable.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I would assume that the term "lawful money" was applied to paper United States Notes to indicate that they were legal tender -- that is, money created by law rather than by market forces (like precious metal) , effectively fiat money since United States Notes were not guaranteed convertible to gold or silver.

So if the Federal Reserve is a private central bank, do you think its notes and credit come into circulation by "law" or rather by market forces?

It is debt, both public and private, that puts those Fed notes into circulation.

Levels of outstanding debt in an economy are generally controlled and defined by prevailing market and economic forces, moreso than government decree.