5 ms·

The power given to the US government is extremely limited. As far as the economy is concerned the US government is given the power to coin money(gold and silve

The power given to the US government is extremely limited. As far as the economy is concerned the US government is given the power to coin money(gold and silver), regulate interstate commerce and trade with foreign nations. That is it. Regulate in this context means to keep regular as in keep interstate trade moving. There is no power to set prices of labor, give subsidies, dictate safety regulations, print money, maximize employment or maintain stable prices that is given to federal government. Through monetary policy the federal government has breached the limits of its granted power. Physical force can be resisted. How do we resist the economic yardstick of the dollar being changed to benefit those in power? This became more ranty than I had hoped. The bottom line is monetary policy of adjusting monetary supply to maintain prices and employment is just the other side of the price fixing coin. It's the same logic behind the reasoning and similar detrimental outcomes for the majority.

cma 5y ago
The only explicit thing about gold and silver is that states can't make anything but them tender, but the feds can through coinage powers (not metal specific): "coin money and regulate the value." Also, the UN Charter is supreme law of the land according to article VI of the US Constitution, so check some of those other claims through there too.
- hellojesus 5y ago
  > This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The UN Charter is law only insofar as it does not run contrary to the US Constitution.
  - cma 5y ago
    No, you are reading that wrong. State laws and the constitution don't withstand against federal treaties.
    - hellojesus 5y ago
      State laws do not supersede federal treaties, but the federal government does not have the authority to enter into a treaty which would violate the Constitution. Insofar as the UN Charter does not violate the constitution, you are correct that it is supreme to state laws and state constitutions, but it cannot by definition run contrary to the Constitution as the federal government would not have been able to enter into it. > Thus, a properly/legally concluded U.S. treaty overrules any STATE law and any STATE Constitution, but a properly/legally framed U.S. treaty does not, may not, can not, and is forbidden to overrule the U.S. Constitution or abrogate the Sovereignty of the United States. If it does, it is not bona fide. It is a usurpation. It is not "under the Authority of the United States" to make such a treaty. https://jpands.org/hacienda/article4.html https://jpands.org/hacienda/article4.html
      - cma 5y ago
        Plain reading, if that statement means it overrides state laws, then it also means it overrides the constitution. It was treated like that in the first few years and then courts came up with a bunch of creative interpretations not to.
        hellojesus 5y ago
        I've decided you're right. I typically advocate for the plain reading, and the plain does state that. Unfortunately this means I now must advocate for the overthrow of the US government, or at least the exitship of the UN Charter and all other treaties which expand power beyond those enumerated in Artice 1 Section 8. Edit: Actually I'm still not sure. Article 6 says, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in the pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme law of the land;..." Congress is not authorized to enter into a treaty which would violate the constitution, so how could they enter into a treaty with the "authority of the United States" if they are not authorized to do that?

cma 5y ago

The only explicit thing about gold and silver is that states can't make anything but them tender, but the feds can through coinage powers (not metal specific): "coin money and regulate the value." Also, the UN Charter is supreme law of the land according to article VI of the US Constitution, so check some of those other claims through there too.

hellojesus 5y ago
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The UN Charter is law only insofar as it does not run contrary to the US Constitution.
- cma 5y ago
  No, you are reading that wrong. State laws and the constitution don't withstand against federal treaties.
  - hellojesus 5y ago
    State laws do not supersede federal treaties, but the federal government does not have the authority to enter into a treaty which would violate the Constitution. Insofar as the UN Charter does not violate the constitution, you are correct that it is supreme to state laws and state constitutions, but it cannot by definition run contrary to the Constitution as the federal government would not have been able to enter into it. > Thus, a properly/legally concluded U.S. treaty overrules any STATE law and any STATE Constitution, but a properly/legally framed U.S. treaty does not, may not, can not, and is forbidden to overrule the U.S. Constitution or abrogate the Sovereignty of the United States. If it does, it is not bona fide. It is a usurpation. It is not "under the Authority of the United States" to make such a treaty. https://jpands.org/hacienda/article4.html https://jpands.org/hacienda/article4.html
    - cma 5y ago
      Plain reading, if that statement means it overrides state laws, then it also means it overrides the constitution. It was treated like that in the first few years and then courts came up with a bunch of creative interpretations not to.
      - hellojesus 5y ago
        I've decided you're right. I typically advocate for the plain reading, and the plain does state that. Unfortunately this means I now must advocate for the overthrow of the US government, or at least the exitship of the UN Charter and all other treaties which expand power beyond those enumerated in Artice 1 Section 8. Edit: Actually I'm still not sure. Article 6 says, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in the pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme law of the land;..." Congress is not authorized to enter into a treaty which would violate the constitution, so how could they enter into a treaty with the "authority of the United States" if they are not authorized to do that?