Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: oblomov
Most likely, one of Paul’s first acts would be to put the US back on the gold (or perhaps a bimetal) standard. FDR and Nixon unconstitutionally took us off of it by executive order, so certainly all it takes is an executive order to put us back on...

I thought 'President Ron Paul' was opposed to the practice of ruling via executive orders?

Oh wait, not if HE is signing the executive orders.

Got it.
52 posted on 09/21/2007 7:14:46 AM PDT by mkjessup (Jan 20, 2009 - "We Don't Know. Where Rudy Went. Just Glad He's Not. The President. Burma Shave.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]


To: mkjessup

There is a difference between issuing executive orders to carry out one’s constitutional authority, and assuming extra-constitutional powers. A common position among libertarians (and many conservatives, such as myself) is the principle of non-delegation. Since the constitution does not grant Congress the power to delegate its lawmaking authority to the executive branch, “regulations” can’t be made by the executive. By extension, the entire regulatory apparatus that sprang up during the New Deal is unconstitutional and unlawful.

Going back on the gold standard is a different matter. It’s as simple as saying that the gold clause of the constitution will be honored, and the gold window is open at the US Treasury. It isn’t making new law, since no law ever closed the gold window. It was arbitrarily closed by Nixon. If you think this is a stupid idea, then amend the constitution to strike the gold clause instead of ignoring the parts you don’t like.


56 posted on 09/21/2007 7:39:36 AM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson