Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post

longislander · 11-27-2023, 09:51 PM

Article I Legislative Branch
Section 10 Powers Denied States
Clause 1 Proscribed Powers
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

It says no state ... it doesn't mention federal gov't.

The Coinage Clause of the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 5) does not explicitly prohibit the federal government from making anything other than silver and gold a tender in payment of debts. However, the Supreme Court has held that the Coinage Clause does implicitly limit the federal government's power to make legal tender.

In the 1884 case of Legal Tender Cases, the Supreme Court held that the Coinage Clause does not grant Congress the power to make anything other than gold and silver coins legal tender. The Court reasoned that since the Coinage Clause only grants Congress the power to "coin money" and "regulate the value of foreign coin," it did not intend to grant Congress the power to make paper money legal tender. The Legal Tender Cases primarily involved the constitutionality of the Legal Tender Act of 1862, 12 Stat. 345, enacted during the American Civil War. The paper money depreciated in terms of gold and became the subject of controversy, particularly because debts contracted earlier could be paid in this cheaper currency.

The Court's decision in Legal Tender Cases has been criticized by some scholars, who argue that the Court's interpretation of the Coinage Clause is too narrow. They argue that the Coinage Clause simply grants Congress the power to regulate the currency, and that this power includes the power to make paper money legal tender.

Despite this criticism, the Court's decision in Legal Tender Cases has never been overruled, and it remains the law of the land. As a result, the federal government is not prohibited from making anything other than silver and gold coins legal tender, but it is limited in its ability to do so.

Secondly,
Is reference is being made to the recent two decisions of the ConVal case by a single judge Ruoff, or the two Claremont decisions?

Probably the ConVal case. That is, presently, a Rockingham County case and is not yet binding on the state. It will be binding on the state, if and when, the NH Supreme Court grants certiorari and decides on the case. If it doesn't get heard by the NH Supreme Court, then what. Legislature v. Judge Ruoff? Or, is it binding only in Rockingham county? It would be surprising if the NH Supreme Court would not intervene, but nothing requires it to do so.

Federal and NH state constitutions can be amended.
Federal:An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

NEXT!

11-27-2023, 09:51 PM	#143
longislander Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Moultonborough Posts: 501 Thanks: 43 Thanked 93 Times in 70 Posts	Article I Legislative Branch Section 10 Powers Denied States Clause 1 Proscribed Powers No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. It says no state ... it doesn't mention federal gov't. The Coinage Clause of the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 5) does not explicitly prohibit the federal government from making anything other than silver and gold a tender in payment of debts. However, the Supreme Court has held that the Coinage Clause does implicitly limit the federal government's power to make legal tender. In the 1884 case of Legal Tender Cases, the Supreme Court held that the Coinage Clause does not grant Congress the power to make anything other than gold and silver coins legal tender. The Court reasoned that since the Coinage Clause only grants Congress the power to "coin money" and "regulate the value of foreign coin," it did not intend to grant Congress the power to make paper money legal tender. The Legal Tender Cases primarily involved the constitutionality of the Legal Tender Act of 1862, 12 Stat. 345, enacted during the American Civil War. The paper money depreciated in terms of gold and became the subject of controversy, particularly because debts contracted earlier could be paid in this cheaper currency. The Court's decision in Legal Tender Cases has been criticized by some scholars, who argue that the Court's interpretation of the Coinage Clause is too narrow. They argue that the Coinage Clause simply grants Congress the power to regulate the currency, and that this power includes the power to make paper money legal tender. Despite this criticism, the Court's decision in Legal Tender Cases has never been overruled, and it remains the law of the land. As a result, the federal government is not prohibited from making anything other than silver and gold coins legal tender, but it is limited in its ability to do so. Secondly, Is reference is being made to the recent two decisions of the ConVal case by a single judge Ruoff, or the two Claremont decisions? Probably the ConVal case. That is, presently, a Rockingham County case and is not yet binding on the state. It will be binding on the state, if and when, the NH Supreme Court grants certiorari and decides on the case. If it doesn't get heard by the NH Supreme Court, then what. Legislature v. Judge Ruoff? Or, is it binding only in Rockingham county? It would be surprising if the NH Supreme Court would not intervene, but nothing requires it to do so. Federal and NH state constitutions can be amended. Federal:An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification. NEXT!