Georgia Bill Would Force State Taxpayers To Pay Only In Gold Or Silver

Holycannoli

Deity
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
2,406
silver and gold sure worked well.

Technology normally moves us forward, not backwards

It wasn't the value of the silver or gold so much as the fact that the coins contained them. That's all that mattered. They didn't even contain a lot in most cases.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
4,695
It may have no chance of being enacted, but it is constitutional.



(notes were originally tradeable for gold or silver so they were OK)

What I want to know are the reasons for proposing this. It has zero chance of being enacted, but there must be a reason why. Is he just making a political statement with it?

Because states cannot determine how debts are to be paid. That is a power of the federal government. Minting currency is one matter, but requiring all debt to be paid in conveniently only your own currency is another. And we are no longer on a gold standard, since the 1970's.

This bill is just a protest bill. These get proposed periodically from time to time to demonstrate a particular politician's disdain for something, and to give it artificial popularity. As a bill, it may gain circulation it could never get otherwise. There was recently a bill in some state, Georgia I think, that would require the secretary of state of Georgia to be presented with an original birth certificate of the president upon inauguration. It's a pretty obvious birther ploy, but also unconstitutional, because the president is not required to present his credentials to a state magistrate.
 

JerichoHill

Bedrock of Knowledge
Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
10,384
Location
Washington DC
It wasn't the value of the silver or gold so much as the fact that the coins contained them. That's all that mattered. They didn't even contain a lot in most cases.

I don't think that the point of a metallic standard is to not value the metal in the coin
 

civ_king

Deus Caritas Est
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
16,368
The whole South should pass this stuff for the lulz
 

Valka D'Ur

Hosting Iron Pen in A&E
Retired Moderator
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
28,012
Location
Red Deer, Alberta, Canada
I've been expecting somebody to say this article is actually from The Onion, or is some other spoof.

You mean it's actually real? :ack:
 

Stile

Emperor
Joined
Jan 19, 2003
Messages
1,096
Location
Alpharetta, GA
I've been expecting somebody to say this article is actually from The Onion, or is some other spoof.

You mean it's actually real? :ack:

Just because it's real, doesn't mean it's serious. A few years back the state legislature passed a law mandating restaurants serve sweet tea, if they served unsweetened tea. (In their defense, tea sweetened by sweetening unsweetened iced tea is not as good as tea sweetened when just brewed.) State legislatures have all sorts.

why folks dont count as 3/5ths anymore.
Well if the teaparty gets their way ......
Good one-liner, but your comment doesn't make sense once you realize the people in favor of equality/emancipation were the ones insisting on discounting slaves.
 

Karalysia

Deity
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
8,438
Good one-liner, but your comment doesn't make sense once you realize the people in favor of equality/emancipation were the ones insisting on discounting slaves.

And there's reason for that. I'm sure you know what it is.
 

Stile

Emperor
Joined
Jan 19, 2003
Messages
1,096
Location
Alpharetta, GA
And there's reason for that. I'm sure you know what it is.

I know what it is. I brought it up. It's a natural inclination to be offended that our government considered slaves to be worth a fraction of a person. It's ironic that someone would imply a group was racist by saying they would bring back the 3/5th compromise when the greatest racists in the olden days (let's face it, almost everyone then would be considered racist by today's standards) actually wanted slaves counted in full to further slavery.
 

Holycannoli

Deity
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
2,406
I don't think that the point of a metallic standard is to not value the metal in the coin

That's not what I mean though. The simple fact that the coins contained silver or gold made them comply with that line in the constitution. According to the constitution though, this does not apply to the federal government (it only says no state)

I used to be a pretty informed US coin collector but it's been 20 years now and a lot of that knowledge is forgotten. I do know though that the first US coins were copper, and that gold and silver coins contained the coins' value of that metal (a $1 gold coin contained $1 of gold).

Interestingly, as I've been researching all this (and it's complicated!), not only am I seeing that the legality of paper notes was determined post-Civil War by political influences, but the reason I see for this bill is:

The United States Constitution declares, in Article I, Section 10, "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts". But, in fact, EVERY state in the United States of America DOES make some other "Thing" besides gold and silver coin a "Tender in Payment of Debts" -- some "Thing" called "Federal Reserve Notes." Thus the need for the "Constitutional Tender Act" -- a bill template that can be introduced in every state legislature in the nation, returning each of them to adherence to the United States Constitution's actual legal tender provisions.

Paper notes were first declared unconstitutional, then later as justices were replaced were upheld as legal. To me that's not satisfactory, but these days it doesn't matter because now paper money is considered valuable the world over. 150 years ago it wasn't, but gold and silver were. When it comes down to it, money is only worth something if people accept it as having worth, so paper money is fine. It may be unconstitutional, and it may not, but it has worth now.

Here's one interesting link that just shows how complicated this all is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender#United_States (the US section). Yes it's wikipedia but it's informative enough, but you have to also read about the gold standard, the court cases challenging paper notes etc. It's complicated.
 

Skwink

FRIIIIIIIIIITZ
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
5,682
Just because it's real, doesn't mean it's serious. A few years back the state legislature passed a law mandating restaurants serve sweet tea, if they served unsweetened tea. (In their defense, tea sweetened by sweetening unsweetened iced tea is not as good as tea sweetened when just brewed.) State legislatures have all sorts.

I was in a town once that had diners serving ONLY pepsi because the Mayor didn't like Coke. (you could by Coca-Cola in stores)
 

Ayatollah So

the spoof'll set you free
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
4,389
Location
SE Michigan
Top Bottom