3 ms·
The essence of your legal theory is that "There is no provision in the constitution for the federal government to regulate money exchange." I guess it can be a
by nicobn 12y ago
The essence of your legal theory is that "There is no provision in the constitution for the federal government to regulate money exchange."
I guess it can be argued that the Section 8 clauses 5 and 6 do not grant the Federal Government the power to regulate the exchange of money.
Nevertheless, the currently accepted interpretation of the Commerce Clause pretty much settles the question [1].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#The_Rehnquist_Court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#The_Rehnquist_C...
- MCRed 12y ago5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; Section 8, clause 5: Defines the weight of money. Section 8, clause 6: Allows for the punishment of counterfeiting. Neither of these have anything to do with trading money between people. I think that is why you did not quote them, you merely cited them expecting that most people would not bother to look them up and thus you would appear to have presented a slam dunk. The commerce clause merely requires that no tariffs can be placed between commerce of the states. I find the phrase "currently accepted" in place of "criminal in practice" to be a convenient bit of spin.
- nicobn 12y agoI'm glad that you can cite the constitution. Maybe you should also have cited clause 3: "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes", which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions as applicable to the instruments of commerce, even in intrastate commerce.