• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

10th amendment discussion

If you're on a jury you can vote not guilty for any reason you want and nobody can do anything about it (unless you took a bribe or something). You don't actually have to listen to instructions. If I am ever on a jury and I think the crime shouldn't be a crime, or that the victim deserved it (A Time to Kill comes to mind), I am likely voting not guilty even if I am sure he did it. And there is nothing anybody can do about it. Well, I guess the prosecutor can try the case again if I hung the jury.
 
I just don't understand how you can get such tortured intepretation out of the clear cut words: "No state shall... make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt." Either you are playing games here or hopelessly trapped in Owellian Doublethink. I think the latter.

No, I think you're just seriously confused.

My position is not that that text confers an authority to the states. My position is that it prohibits an authority from the states.

You're arguing that it somehow not only confers an authority to the states but, given that you cited it in response to Alferd Packer's question, that it somehow reserves an exclusive authority to the states. It does not.

I refuse to defend a straw man position that you invented. The decision in Nixon really is the current interpretation of the bits of the Constitution in question. The one you and your sovereign citizen blogs come up with has been rejected by the entity with the authority (given in Article 3) is not current jurisprudence.

About the strongest argument you have is that things could change, and Nixon could at some point be reversed. But that hasn't happened, nor is there any evidence that it's likely ever to happen.
 
If you're on a jury you can vote not guilty for any reason you want and nobody can do anything about it (unless you took a bribe or something). You don't actually have to listen to instructions. If I am ever on a jury and I think the crime shouldn't be a crime, or that the victim deserved it (A Time to Kill comes to mind), I am likely voting not guilty even if I am sure he did it. And there is nothing anybody can do about it. Well, I guess the prosecutor can try the case again if I hung the jury.


We've already gone around on this point.

First, juries are given questions of fact to decide. The court has a tradition of not questioning a jury's reasoning or motives in returning their decision, so technically, they are assumed to be following instructions and making a decision based on their finding of fact. [ETA: in rare cases, this happens repeatedly on the same point of law such that the law has been nullified de facto, but this has no de jure recognition. At any rate, it certainly doesn't apply to the Nixon decision I cited.]

Second, in no way can these decisions be said to "trump" a Supreme Court decision.

And going back to the jumping off point on this issue, there is no jury decision that is capable of "trumping" the Nixon decision that I offered as the current interpretation of the clauses of the Constitution that Robert Prey is offering as evidence that states have the authority to reject the use of paper money printed by the federal government.

The Nixon case, btw, is a civil suit and not a criminal case. All civil suit trial decisions--even those decided by a jury--are appealable. (There is no double jeopardy restriction when the only thing being "jeopardized" is money or equity rather than the person.)

So mixing up criminal with civil matters, pretending "binding" decisions only means the disposition of a single case (rather than establishing jurisprudence that is binding on lower courts wrt interpretation of the Constitution) and so on is just illogical argumentation.

Nothing about jury nullification changes the fact that the Nixon decision is the current interpretation of the clauses of the Constitution Robert Prey incorrectly believes gives states the authority reject paper money printed by the federal government.

ETA: Also, the only other case Robert Prey has cited in this discussion is the Dred Scott case, which was also a civil case and not a criminal one. The jury decision (which granted him his freedom) was in fact reversed by the Supreme Court, and the final disposition of his case was that he was returned to a slave-owner as property. So it's pretty clear which level of the judicial system "trumped" the other. As has been pointed out, that we are not currently bound by the Dred Scott decision is because that finding was nullified by the Emancipation proclamation (only in certain states and portions of states, and only during a state of national emergency) and the 14th and 15th Amendments.
 
Last edited:
As has been pointed out, that we are not currently bound by the Dred Scott decision is because that finding was nullified by the Emancipation proclamation (only in certain states and portions of states, and only during a state of national emergency) and the 14th and 15th Amendments.

To be picky, the 13th amendment figures in there.

(The actual one about slavery, not the conspiracy theory one about lawyers holding public office)
 
No, I think you're just seriously confused.

My position is not that that text confers an authority to the states. My position is that it prohibits an authority from the states.

You're arguing that it somehow not only confers an authority to the states but, given that you cited it in response to Alferd Packer's question, that it somehow reserves an exclusive authority to the states. It does not.

It does not "confer" an authority, but prohibits an authority to make any thing but ,.,."
 
Joe the Juggler has still ducked, refused to explain just how or where the states are given permission to coin gold and silver when the const. says the states are prohibited from coining money. Still waiting for an answer on that one.
 
Joe the Juggler has still ducked, refused to explain just how or where the states are given permission to coin gold and silver when the const. says the states are prohibited from coining money. Still waiting for an answer on that one.

Bullcrap. I have cited case law which you continue to ignore based on your bizarre ideas of how the government works.
 
I will also cite the section of the U.S. Code that the Nixon case cites:

USC Title 31 said:
§ 5103. LEGAL TENDER

United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.

And this is clearly legislation within the constitutional authority of Congress to pass under the Commerce Clause authority (and since it conflicts with no other part of the Constitution).

So what else do you have? More jury nullification? More Dred Scott?
 
Bullcrap. I have cited case law which you continue to ignore based on your bizarre ideas of how the government works.

I remind that the Constitution fully recognizes that there will be laws out there that are contrary to it. And that is why they included the Supremacy Clause. So you have cited one lower court case, very wrongly decided but you cannot cite a single passage in the Constitution itself that authorizes the states to coin money, even if gold and silver. Yet you have claimed otherwise. Time to admit, you are caught in the mental trap of Orwellian Doublethink and there is just no way out.
 
Bullcrap. I have cited case law which you continue to ignore based on your bizarre ideas of how the government works.

Joe, why do you continue? You are dealing with someone who knows NOTHING about United States history, United States government or world history. This is someone who doesn't even know the reasons for the fall of ancient Rome, something that is well known by 6th graders.
 
Joe, why do you continue? You are dealing with someone who knows NOTHING about United States history, United States government or world history. This is someone who doesn't even know the reasons for the fall of ancient Rome, something that is well known by 6th graders.

A little history lesson for an obvious graduate of a government school:

From: A plea for the Constitution of the United States by George Bancroft
(Citing James Madison)


"We have a record of what was spoken and of what was done in the federal convention kept by Madison, who took upon himself the most solemn engagement to preserve the truth for the instruction of coming generations, and whose opportunity, capacity, and integrity no one questions. His report of what was said and done on the 16th of August in the federal convention preserves the testimony of many witnesses, taken down as it were by the most capable notary.

The question before the convention was: Shall power be granted to the legislature of the United States "to emit bills of credit?" The first witness is Gouverneur Morris, a man free from illusions; a delegate from the state which contained Philadelphia, then the most opulent city in the thirteen states; and as by his interests he was nearly connected with the city and state of New York, he thoroughly represented the interests of commerce. He moved to strike out the grant of power to "emit bills on the credit of the United States," saying: "If the United States have credit, such bills will be unnecessary; if they have not, will be unjust and useless." The seconder of Gouverneur Morris was Pierce Butler, a delegate from South Carolina, then the richest commercial state in the South. He remarked in the course of debate that "paper is a legal tender in no country in Europe," and he was urgent to withhold from the government of the United States the power to make it so.

Madison interposed: "Will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making" the bills "a tender?" Gorham, in reply to Madison, held that no accompanying prohibition was sufficient to make it safe to grant to the legislature of the United States the power to emit bills of credit. He spoke absolutely "for striking the words out," saying: "If the words stand, they may suggest and lead to the measure."

The words of Oliver Ellsworth, our third chief justice, were: "This is a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which have been made are now fresh in the public mind, and have excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America."

Randolph expressed "his antipathy to paper money;" but "could not agree to strike out the words, as he could not foresee all the occasions that might arise."

James Wilson, in concurrence with Ellsworth, said: "It will have a most salutary influence on the credit of the United States to remove the possibility of paper money. This expedient can never succeed whilst its mischiefs are remembered; and, as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources."

George Reed spoke for Delaware: "The words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the beast in Revelation."

John Langdon, of New Hampshire, conforming to the wise instructions of the towns of his state, said: "I had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words 'and emit bills.'"

Madison, agreeing with the journal of the convention, records that the grant of power to emit bills of credit was refused by a majority of more than four to one. Eleven men took part in the discussion; and every one of the eleven, whether he spoke for or against the grant of the power, Gouverneur Morris, Pierce Buffer, James Madison, Nathaniel Gorham, George Mason, John F. Mercer, Oliver Ellsworth, Edmund Randolph, James Wilson, George Reed, and John Langdon, each and all, understood the vote to be a denial to the legislature of the United States of the power to emit paper money. Take the men, one by one, and see how weighty is the witness of each individual; take them together and add the consideration that they, every one of them, unanimously support each other and are contradicted by no one, and who shall dare question their testimony? The evidence is perfect; no power to emit paper money was granted to the legislature of the United States."

http://www.constitution.org/gb/gb-plea.htm
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom