FRN-Discharge-Taxes

[DCLXVI]

One thing with the post above this one is the apparent lack of understanding that the gold clause in section 10 of Article 1 only applies to "states" and not at all to the federal government.

[Shoonra]

The restriction on the states is a corollary to the power of the federal govt to coin money and regulate the monetary system. Congress is given the authority to coin money AND regulate its value AND regulate the value of foreign coins. States are prohibited from coining money and, if a state wants to use something other than the Congressional-issued currency (for example, if there were not enough Congressionally-issued money in circulation to handle all the transactions) then the state's only option is gold and/or silve COIN. Notice the restriction is to coins of gold or silver ... not gold dust or jewelry or anything like that. And since the states cannot produce their own coins, this means their only alternative to Congressional-issued currency is foreign coins of gold or silver, - not even foreign copper or pewter coins. And since Congress already has the power to regulate the value of foreign coins, essentially the states are limited to using Congressionally-issued currency and also Congressionally-regulated foreign currency, and nothing that Congress hasn't in some way approved.

When the Constitution says that states can only use (foreign) gold or silver coins as a "tender of payment", the states might issue their own paper currency - as they did early in the Republic - but the state cannot compel someone to accept their paper currency. A person might insist on being paid with either Congressionally-issued currency or Congressionally-regulated foreign currency, instead of the state-issued paper money.

[dorkenbutt]

Sorry, but the Constitution clearly states that the states can only accept gold or silver coin as a Tender in payment of debt. This is clear and unambiguous. Since the states are not accepting payment any longer there is no prohibition from accepting FRNs, because it is NOT payment but discharge. Besides, obligations are evidence of debt. Both Title 18 § 8 and Title 12 § 411 declare FRNs to be obligations. Tell me, what are obligations? Debt? This why there is no longer any payment. Obligations cannot pay anything and are not taxable. There is no law anywhere that states debt can be taxed that I know of. However, when people openly agree that FRNs are money, when they are not, then that can be taxed by agreement. You can't argue with ignorance, however. This ends my two cents.

[dorkenbutt]

Originally Posted by DCLXVI

One thing with the post above this one is the apparent lack of understanding that the gold clause in section 8 of Article 1 only applies to "states" and not at all to the federal government.

LOL!!! ROFLMAO!!!

Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

That answers that

[DCLXVI]

Originally Posted by HJR 192

. . . Every obligation heretofore or hereafter incurred, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts."

Originally Posted by Stanek v. White (1927), 172 Minn. 390, 215 N.W. 781.

“There is a distinction between a debt discharged and one paid. When discharged, the debt still exists, though divested of its character as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge.”

SO what I am saying is that if someone owes me a debt, and then they discharge that debt in Bankruptcy, can I claim it as a "final" loss on my tax return?

How does Bankruptcy differ from the discharge of debt mentioned in HJR 192?

[DCLXVI]

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

LOL!!! ROFLMAO!!!

Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

That answers that

Sorry wrong section. I was busy writing something else and it spilled over. However the rule of law is correct.

Article 1

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; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

This section makes no mention of what the state may accept as payment. It merely denies the state to "require" payment in anything other than gold or silver. You are wrong Dorkenbutt.

[DCLXVI]

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

Sorry, but the Constitution clearly states that the states can only accept gold or silver coin as a Tender in payment of debt. This is clear and unambiguous.

Please show me the precise phrase that uses the term "accept". If that word is not used then it is not unambiguous as to the term "Make" meaning "accept". If the state "accepts" payment then it is the payor that decided to use those goods as payment and it was he that made the goods into "money".

[dorkenbutt]

Originally Posted by DCLXVI

Please show me the precise phrase that uses the term "accept". If that word is not used then it is not unambiguous as to the term "Make" meaning "accept". If the state "accepts" payment then it is the payor that decided to use those goods as payment and it was he that made the goods into "money".

What you have stated has already addressed by another, which I will comment on. People need to stop agreeing FRNs are money, because they are not. What part of Federal Reserve Notes are obligations (debt) do you not understand? It is by people's acceptance that FRNs are money is the reason it is taxed. It cannot be otherwise. Debts cannot be taxed. Where is the accession to wealth that the PTB and their agents claim with FRNs? There is none because evidence of debt can never be gain or increasing one's wealth. This is bogus BS!!!

One of the meanings of "make" is "cause to be." The fact is "make" does not mean create. Remember, there is already a prohibition against coining money, so make cannot mean create. Therefore this is referring to acceptance. No state shall make (cause to be) any Thing but gold or silver Coin a Tender in Payment of debts. The states are prohibited from accepting any Thing but gold or silver Coin as a Tender in Payment and since there is no "money" any longer with which to do so, then FRNs can only discharge. If there is only discharge with FRNs (evidence of debt), then there can be no violation of the Constitution.

It is not a matter of whether I am right or wrong, but what the Law of the Land says. My explanation above is correct.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

The states are prohibited from accepting any Thing but gold or silver Coin as a Tender in Payment

Wrong. States must accept the currency authorized by Congress and if, for some reason, there is not enough of that currency to go around, then the states can make foreign gold & silver coin an additional form of currency.

[dorkenbutt]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Wrong. States must accept the currency authorized by Congress and if, for some reason, there is not enough of that currency to go around, then the states can make foreign gold & silver coin an additional form of currency.

As I have heard said, you can't argue with ignorance. LOL!!!

I never said the states could not accept FRNs, only that FRNs are not payment, as this is reserved to gold or silver coin only. Boy you do not understand English do you.

You will also note, that I said there is no violation of the Constitution because FRNs are not accepted as payment, but discharge only. The states can accept anything they want to as long as it is not accepted as payment. If it were then there would be a violation of the Constitution. How did you become a librarian? LOL!!!