Despite Support, No Political Will In Republican Party To Create A Gold Standard â€“ Analysts

Although there has been early support from some Republican candidates to put the U.S. monetary policy back on the gold standard, many analysts say there isn't the political will to make this a major issue during the 2016 election.

Monday, Iowans cast their vote in the first primary election to nominate their candidate to run for President late in the year. The Republican field is fairly wide with 12 candidates on the ticket in Iowa. Of the 12 candidates, the idea of moving back to a gold standard has been supported by five;, Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Rand Paul, Dr. Ben Carson, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

Second place in the polls, Cruz has been the most vocal noting, during the October Republican presidential debate, that the Fed should be focused on "sound money and monetary stability, ideally tied to gold."

In the same debate, Huckabee said that the dwindling middleclass is the result of the U.S Fed "manipulating" the dollar. "What we need to do is to make sure that they tie the monetary standard to something that makes sense, rather than to their own whims," he said.

Christie raised concerns about the impact the Fed's extraordinary money printing will have on the economy while Carson has noted that the value of the U.S. dollar is based on nothing.

There is not enough gold for a gold standard. However, we *could* have an effective “metals standard” or “Metallism” that would include gold. This would oddly enough be beneficial to those who own gold, as it would make their gold more convertible and less volatile.

The concept would not be the idea of coinage alloys, for example, but for pure metals that would be laser engraved to discourage tampering, then sealed in tough but transparent containers, think tough plastic “clamshell” containers, as a second measure against tampering.

Platinum, gold, silver, copper, palladium, rhodium, titanium, aluminum, zinc, nickel, etc.

What am I overlooking?

On the gold standard it appears that you're not overlooking anything.

But, this is from a letter to the editor I submitted about a balanced budget amendment:

There is a law on the books that states that the Federal government cannot spend more than it takes in. This law was adopted in 1981, Public Law 95-435, Section 7. It's still valid, so why do our elected officials in Congress not obey that law?

That raises a number of other questions. Is there a penalty clause for violations of the law? Can every politician who voted in favor of violating the law be punished? Is a violation a misdemeanor or a felony? Who would be in charge of prosecuting the offenders?

We the people are expected to obey the law; why won't we hold our servants (who have, regrettably, morphed into masters) to the same standard?

Finally, since the law is already being ignored, what makes us think that an amendment would not also be ignored? The Second Amendment being a prime example in New Jersey; what part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?

"There is a law on the books that states that the Federal government cannot spend more than it takes in."

Given the remote possibility that you have not seen the following, you might find it interesting. From a related thread . . .

Patriots, please note that a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.

”Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” - Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

Based on the Courts statement above, here is a rough approximation of how much taxpayers should be paying Congress annually to perform its Section 8-limited power duties.

Given that the plurality of clauses in Section 8 deal with defense, and given that the Department of Defense budget for 2015 was $500+ billion, I will generously round up the $500+ billion figure to $1 trillion (but probably much less) as the annual price tag of the federal government to the taxpayers.

In other words, the corrupt media, including Obama guard dog Fx News, should not be reporting multi-trillion dollar annual federal budgets without mentioning the Supreme Courts clarification of Congresss limited power to appropriate taxes in budget discussions.

The problem is that the media, including Fx News, is taking advantage of low-information citizens who do not understand that the federal government does not have the constitutional authority establish most of the social spending programs that corrupt candidates for federal office promise voters if these candidates are elected.

Remember in November !

When patriots elect Trump, or whatever conservative they elect, they need to also elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will work within its Section 8-limited powers to support the new president.

Also, consider that such a Congress would probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.

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.