Interpret some law for me, will you?
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 anything 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.
If I'm correctly extrapolating, wouldn't that mean our current monetary system is unconstitutional? I realize that this is about state rights but we're not using a gold standard, so any money owed to or paid by a state is illegal, no?
I wouldn't recommend a gold standard, no matter what, but if I am reading that right (and freely confess that I might not be) shouldn't there be an amendment?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Did you check for antecedants?
what would Tums have to do with the gold standard of cash?
I think I could explain this. The paper currency used to be able to be cashed out at any time for its value in gold/silver... until this became too difficult to do so. Older dollars have that "silver certificate" motto on them, right? So it's merely representational - the paper currency is *based* upon its exchange value in precious metals.
I think.
Except that US currency is based on GNP, not precious metals. Hence my problem. *shrug*
Post a Comment