What is a “dollar”?


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=199&page=437

What is a “dollar”? Law and history reveals what it is.

The US Constitution uses the word “dollar” in 2 separate places. In Art. 1, § 9, the Constitution mentions a tax on slaves not to exceed “ten dollars for each Person.” The 7th Amendment provides that jury trials are “preserved” when “the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars”. Words in the constitution mean whatever they meant when the constitution was adopted. “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.” See South Carolina v. United States, 199 US 437, 448 (1905), posted here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=199&page=437

In April, 1786, the Continental Congress proposed that the “dollar” be the “money of account of the United States”. See attached pages from the Journals. The “dollar” then in common circulation in this country was the “Spanish milled silver dollar”.
Thus we know that just prior to the adoption of the Constitution, “the money of account of the US” or “dollar” was the then current Spanish milled silver dollar.

When the Constitution was adopted, the legal tender power of the States via Art. 1, §10, cl. 1 was limited to gold and silver, and that gold and silver was simply to be “coined” by a mint operated by the US Govt. See Art. 1, §8, cl. 5 (“to coin money, regulate the value thereof”). The intent of the framers of the constitution was that our money, the dollar, be specie.

In 1792, Alex Hamilton determined by scientific method exactly what was a “dollar” then in circulation. He acquired 1000 Spanish milled silver dollars, melted them, and then determined the average weight of 1 dollar by dividing the total grains of pure silver in the melted mass by 1000. That weight was found to be 371.25 grains of pure silver. This finding was then memorialized in the Coinage Act of 1792, which is attached.

A “dollar” is a weight of silver being 371.25 grains of pure silver. This weight is about 0.77 of an ounce. An ounce of pure silver thus has a legal “dollar” value of $1.2929292929.

 

drug money

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Education, News and politics, Organizations and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to What is a “dollar”?

  1. PeterBDunn says:

    http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm

    [Freedom_of_Information] LOST HORIZONS, GOV tax cheats!

    LOST HORIZONS

    Where the problem of the state gets solved, not just complained about.

    In this week’s Lost Horizons News:

    This Is All That Matters Right Now

    On December 10, the good guys come together, or a final nail goes into the rule of law’s coffin.

    LET IT BE SAID PLAINLY: Forcing someone to declare herself indebted to another party– whether by court order or threat of penalty for not making such a declaration– is not a legitimate, lawful act of any organ of the state. Instead, it is a corrupt, tyrannical act, and prohibited by the United States Constitution’s speech, due process and equal protection provisions.

    LET IT BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD: Compelling someone to declare a belief that her earnings are “income” taxable by the United States is compelling her to declare herself indebted to the United States (or to declare her agreement with material facts under which the tax debt then arises as a matter of law). Compelling someone to declare her earnings on a line in the “income” section of a testimonial document like a 1040– whether by direct command or by threat of a penalty for not doing so– is compelling her to declare a belief that those earnings are “income” and subject to the tax.

    LET IT BE RECOGNIZED: If someone’s earnings ARE actually subject to the tax as a matter of law, and the government is aware of them sufficiently to command their declaration on a 1040, there can be no legitimate purpose for compelling their declaration, even were doing so not Constitutionally prohibited. Such an effort to compel can only serve a government interest if those earnings ARE NOT actually subject to the tax as a matter of law.

    Earnings actually subject to the tax are so subject whether the recipient agrees or not. Compelling agreement with that fact is pointless as well as illegal. All the government needs to do is create its own return declaring the earnings to be “income” over a sworn signature– which it is, in fact, required to do by law if the recipient of the earnings hasn’t already agreed to the tax. Needless to say, this is both simpler, cheaper and easier than attempting to compel agreement from the recipient, and involves no Constitutional issues. (And again, it is mandated by law in any event).

    Compulsion of declared “agreement” is only of use to the government where the earnings in question are NOT actually taxable. Its purpose is to eliminate the recipient’s ability to dispute the application of the tax to those earnings, and allow the government to proceed as though those earnings are taxable as a matter of law.

    Declared agreement creates a false appearance of “no dispute over material facts”. The government is relieved of what otherwise would be its burdens of proof (or, more exactly, its obligation to walk away from the untaxable earnings and confine its attention to gains legitimately subject to the tax, in regard to which no coerced fiction of agreement is needed). The tax can then collected– improperly, but with a superficial appearance of legitimacy which is impenetrable by anyone not educated about the actual objects of the tax and how it is applied under the law.
    Due to the success of the “ignorance tax” scam, a simple dynamic is in place in Australia/America: Wealth is extracted from the millions taken in by the scam and moved into the US Treasury. From there it is doled out under one federal program or another to clients and cronies of the state– the military-industrial complex; industries capitalizing on the massive welfare state apparatus; big agribusiness; the banksters; big education/indoctrination; prison industries; etc.

    These beneficiaries of the tax scam then send back a dribble of the pelf to support and retain in office the political hacks who support and maintain the programs under which all that money goes into motion (which is still a very big dribble, since the pelf is doled out in torrential volumes, and a tiny fraction of that torrent is still a lot of money).

    BUT THERE COULD NEVER BE SUCH COMPELLED AGREEMENT IN AUSTRALIA/ AMERICA, you say! Such a thing could never happen here!!

    Wrong. It IS happening here, right now. And you’d better pay attention and get involved.
    Wall Street Moves to Put Taxpayers on the Hook for Derivatives Trades

    Remember what Wall Street wants, Wall Street gets

    http://www.infowars.com/wall-street-moves-to-put-taxpayers-on-the-hook-for-derivatives-trades/

    According to multiple sources, banks are pushing hard to include the controversial provision in funding legislation that would keep the government operating after Dec. 11. Top negotiators in the House are taking the derivatives provision seriously, and may include it in the final bill, the sources said.

    The bank perks are not a traditional budget item. They would allow financial institutions to trade certain financial derivatives from subsidiaries that are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. — potentially putting taxpayers on the hook for losses caused by the risky contracts. Big Wall Street banks had typically traded derivatives from these FDIC-backed units, but the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law required them to move many of the transactions to other subsidiaries that are not insured by taxpayers.

    Last year, Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) introduced the same provision under debate in the current budget talks. The legislative text was written by a Citigroup lobbyist, according to The New York Times. The bill passed the House by a vote of 292 to 122 in October 2013, 122 Democrats opposed, and 70 in favor. All but three House Republicans supported the bill.

    It wasn’t clear whether the derivatives perk will survive negotiations in the House, or if the Senate will include it in its version of the bill. With Democrats voting nearly 2-to-1 against the bill in the House, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) never brought the bill up for a vote in the Senate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s