SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Waiting for the big Kahuna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Real Man who wrote (90667)10/19/2009 1:39:44 PM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 94695
 
Congress's enumeratred powers under Art.1 include the power to "coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."

I don't know what the purpose of the Constitutional provision prohibiting a state from making anything but gold and silver legal tender might have been. I suspect it was intended to keep a state from declaring that, say, Virginian paper dollars were legal tender for debts incurred in Virginia. It might be OK for a state to issue its own gold and silver currency, however. The clauses enumerating the powers of Congress are a bit unclear on this when compared to the list of prohibited State actions.

However, I think it is a stretch to say that this limitation on the power of a state inescapably leads to the conclusion that gold and silver were the only forms of legal tender intended by the Founding Fathers, esp. since the enumerated Congressional powers give Congress to regulate the value of money. I think this is the bugs' argument.

I think the better Constitutional attack is one suggesting that since the Constitution gave Congress the right to regulate money and its value, Congressional delegation of that power to the Fed might be an improper delegation of Congressional duties.

Assuming this analysis is correct, do we want Congress being the ultimate arbiter of the value of money?