FRNs shall be redeemed in lawful money ...

[David Merrill]

I think it was probably Page 2 of Report 83-150 A attached above.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I think it was probably Page 2 of Report 83-150 A attached above.

That cannot be David, unless the folk up in DC have a three to 13 year advance notice of what the upcoming law dictionaries are going to be printing.

Your PDF 83-150 is dated July 5, 1983 and the letter from the Senator stipulates an inclusion of law dictionaries to and including 1986 ("to the 1986 edition of Black's Law, Second Pocket Edition, an") with an inference that the 'report' would contain that information. How would the writers of the report in 1983 know to include language from the then non-existant 1986 edition of the dictionary?

Secondly, the pages of the alleged senatorial pdf file also includes a date of 1996, which certainly could not have been known in 1983. "Black's Law, Second Pocket Edition (1996)" (see page 3 of the senatorial pdf).

Jerry

[Shoonra]

A simple question: What are law dictionaries based one?

They are based on statements of the law, sometimes from statutes, sometimes from court decisions, and occasionally from scholarly authorities such as law review articles.

The law dictionaries are the tail, not the dog.

As for lawful money: For the past several decades, Congress has not passed any law that defines or even uses the term "lawful money" -- instead it has been replacing and repealing sections that used that term and in 1994 it very deliberately repealed a very old provision that suggested that lawful money was confined to gold and silver coin.

On the other hand, Black's Law Dictionary, from its Second Edition (ca. 1890) and since, has defined "lawful money" as synonymous with "legal tender" (s.v. Lawful), which is pretty much what the courts have also done, especially since the adoption of the legal tender provision that makes all US currency, past and present, legal tender.

[Extramural]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

As for lawful money: For the past several decades, Congress has not passed any law that defines or even uses the term "lawful money" -- instead it has been replacing and repealing sections that used that term and in 1994 it very deliberately repealed a very old provision that suggested that lawful money was confined to gold and silver coin.

Bernie,

Can you show where Congress repealed the provision of the Constitution for the united states of America, Article I, Section 10?

I'd be interested to see that.

[David Merrill]

Thanks Jerry;


You are right. I saw the 2007 date on the letter.

Congress has defined FRNs are legal tender and may be redeemed in lawful money. That definition is still found in Title 12 U.S.C. §411 codified from the Federal Reserve Act.

The reason I mentioned page 2 of the Report attached is that it speaks to the definition of "dollar" being fluid. Like the topic of the letter.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

[quote=ExtramuralCan you show where Congress repealed the provision of the Constitution for the united states of America, Article I, Section 10?
[/QUOTE]

No, Article I sec. 10, forbidding the State governments (not the federal govt) from coining money or making anything but gold and silver coin legal tender is still in force.
The US Supreme Court, and others, have stressed this is a restriction on the States, not the Congress, and means that, if there should not be enough Congressionally-authorized currency to go around, the States had the power to adopt as an additional currency the foreign gold and silver coins which the Congress was empowered to set the value, under Art.I, sec. 8, clause 5. I do not know if a State ever did that. Sometimes States would issue their own paper money, but under the restriction of Art.I, sec. 10, they could not compel anyone to accept their state-issued paper.

The provision that was explicitly repealed by Congress in 1994 is the old 12 USC sec 152, repealed by PL 103-325, sec. 602, Sept. 23, 1994.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

No, Article I sec. 10, forbidding the State governments (not the federal govt) from coining money or making anything but gold and silver coin legal tender is still in force.
The US Supreme Court, and others, have stressed this is a restriction on the States, not the Congress, and means that, if there should not be enough Congressionally-authorized currency to go around, the States had the power to adopt as an additional currency the foreign gold and silver coins which the Congress was empowered to set the value, under Art.I, sec. 8, clause 5. I do not know if a State ever did that. Sometimes States would issue their own paper money, but under the restriction of Art.I, sec. 10, they could not compel anyone to accept their state-issued paper.

The provision that was explicitly repealed by Congress in 1994 is the old 12 USC sec 152, repealed by PL 103-325, sec. 602, Sept. 23, 1994.

Therein is Shoonra's admission that Congress shall have the power to define lawful money - not the courts. Thank you Extramural!!

Originally Posted by US v Rickman; 638 F.2d 182

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and

Originally Posted by US v Ware; 608 F.2d 400

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

He just cannot keep that straight in his mind.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

He just cannot keep that straight in his mind.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Believe me, Shoonra KNOWS the truth!

It hurts, doesn't it Uncle Bernie?

"Fiddling about?"

Do unto others what has been done unto you?