Skip to comments.PAPER MONEY WAS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL & SO THEY MANIPULATED THE SUPREME COURT...
Posted on 04/15/2012 11:27:40 AM PDT by Razzz42
One of the fascinating aspects of all the controversy about paper money v hard money, has been the lack of knowledge of just how did it come about? Oh we can go back to paper money being a receipt from bullion dealers offering money storage, and we can go the American Colonial Period and point to the drastic shortage of coin that necessitated paper money issues. But those stories are fairly common knowledge. What isnt talked about even in school is the manipulation of the Supreme Court AFTER it declared that PAPER MONEY WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!...
...The recordings of the debates over the Constitution make is very clear that because of the hyperinflation experienced during the Colonial period, the Founding Fathers were expressly prohibiting both DIRECT TAXATION as well as the DENIAL OF ANY RIGHT TO ISSUE PAPER MONEY as an alternative to borrowing. In the first instance, the Congress choose to follow Karl Marx and introduced the income tax moving for a Constitutional Amendment to grant that over-overruling and disregarding the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. In the case of the latter, they simply replace two judges on the Supreme Court who altered the Constitution. Unfortunately, we have no recourse to deal with judges for they are outside of every democratic safeguard intended by the Revolution and will always remain the greatest threat to our liberty...
...It is within this context that we must question what Congress has done by allocating authority of the money supply to the Federal Reserve. However, to whom does one complain? A judge? Good luck!
(Excerpt) Read more at inflateordie.com ...
I've always believed this to be at the heart of what is now the failing American Experiment.
No Taxing System Authority?
"Not Today," Said Arthur?
Never To See Aposty?
Nine Tomatoes Sunning Audaciously?
Not exactly. Congress has the power to regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Also, Congress (or rather a majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate) can remove an judge whenever it sees fit.
That such restraints on the power of the judges has not been implemented is not the fault of those who wrote the powers into the Constitution. It's the fault of lazy and careerist congressmen.
I spent about an hour trying for something REALLY tacky... but alas, after 4 days in Washington, of course, all sense and logic failed me.
Oh No, Not This S**t Again.........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.