Doomsday Bill in Wyoming, INTERESTING!

[bucfan64 309]

The state of Wyoming advanced a Bill that would better help them prepare in the event of a natural or man made disaster (economic collapse).

 

Interesting, news story with article.....

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/wyoming-advances-doomsday-bill-to-help-residents-during-possible-collapse/

[Deleted Account 5,203]

The state of Wyoming advanced a Bill that would better help them prepare in the event of a natural or man made disaster (economic collapse).

 

Interesting, news story with article.....

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/wyoming-advances-doomsday-bill-to-help-residents-during-possible-collapse/

 

The currency provision is clearly unconstitutional and will doom this bill to failure.

And no, "we can coin money if you collapse" is not a plausible argument for constitutionality.

[bucfan64 309]

Private and local currencies are legal however and as long as they do not use the term DOLLAR on their markings they can be legally traded. For example Berkshares in Mass. are a commonly traded form of currency.

 

But as far as I understand the Constitution, states CANNOT print or coin a different currency because of the LEGAL TENDER ACT.

 

What else do u know about this concept?

[legend11 32]

I think "Doomsday Bill" would be a pretty sweet moniker for a wrestler.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Private and local currencies are legal however and as long as they do not use the term DOLLAR on their markings they can be legally traded. For example Berkshares in Mass. are a commonly traded form of currency.

 

But as far as I understand the Constitution, states CANNOT print or coin a different currency because of the LEGAL TENDER ACT.

 

What else do u know about this concept?

 

Step 1: Read Article I, Section 8.

Step 2: Stick your size 13 into your mouth.

 

Unless Wyoming plans to barter chick peas for grain, it's unconstitutional.

Edited February 27, 2012 by UVAObserver

[bucfan64 309]

Step 1: Read Article I, Section 8.

Step 2: Stick your size 13 into your mouth.

 

Unless Wyoming plans to barter chick peas for grain, it's unconstitutional.

 

Why do you have to be such an ASS?

 

I never said Wyoming was doing it, I said that here are local and private currencies that are currently being traded.

 

Berkshares are legal!

 

eCurrency uses electronic gold exchange as a form of currency

 

Many local communities are using local currencies in exchange for goods and services

 

Detroit Cheers are used in Michigan

 

Ithaca Hours are exchanged in NY

 

USA Today reported last year in an article entitled “Communities print their own currency to keep cash flowing.” The goal is to help local economies in bad times.

 

This is legal and it is happening!! If people are willing to accept it is considered currency. Maybe not LEGAL TENDER but it is currency.

 

The Mint Act of April 2, 1792 established our system of coinage and set the proportional value of gold and silver, set the standard parts to make up gold and silver coins and regulated the value thereof. To my knowledge this act has never been repealed, so technically the Federal Reserve Notes that we use today are Unconstutional also.

 

I never once said that what Wyoming was suggesting was CONSTITUTIONAL, as usual you read too much into a post and then go bat crazy!

 

BTW, I am perfectly aware of Ariticle 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, I did commit several years of my life studying history and political science.

Edited February 27, 2012 by bucfan64

[bucfan64 309]

A careful reading of the Bill suggests that an alternative currency would be devolped in the "aftermath" of a FAILED U.S. Govt.

 

This would take place in the event, that the U.S. Govt. was no longer in effective control of the country.. In other words THE CONSTITUTION would have to be a moot point before the currency usage would be invoked.

 

It reads:

 

“a situation in which the federal government has no effective power or authority over the people of the United States.”

 

btw, all of the above currencies that I mentioned are exchange currencies. In other words, you can exchange U.S. dollars or coins for them and then exchange them in a similiar manner as you would LEGAL TENDER, usually with a discount on products, goods or services.

Edited February 27, 2012 by bucfan64

[Deleted Account 5,203]

I wouldn't have to be an ass if you would think before you posted things. You pretty much challenged me to contravert you by the snide "what else do u know about this concept". Controvert you I did by the way of the U.S. Constitution. I took a little more panache than I normally do because you've proven to be almost unhumanly hard-headed and wholly unapologetic when someone calls you on something you post that is incorrect or improper.

 

I'm going to go through your posts POINT BY LABORIOUS POINT to once again show you that you don't know this subject from a hole in the ground.

 

Article I, Section 8 specifically gives to Congress the power to coin money. It's their province, no one else.

The Tenth Amendment would not apply, because the Constitution gave that power to solely Congress, not to the states.

 

You started by saying:

 

Private and local currencies are legal

 

Half of this is right. Private currencies are legal. I'm going to call them "FunBucks" for the rest of this post.

However, local currencies are not, never have been, and never will. Why? That would be a right given to the states.

See Article I, Section 8.

 

Berkshares are legal!

 

Not public.

 

eCurrency uses electronic gold exchange as a form of currency

 

Also not public.

 

Many local communities are using local currencies in exchange for goods and services

 

Detroit Cheers are used in Michigan

 

Ithaca Hours are exchanged in NY

 

Swing and a miss, strike three! Since we all obviously keep newspaper references that are three years old on hand, let me quote you this article I found from 4/5/2009 from the USA Today to prove you incorrect. "Businesses and individuals form a network to print currency. Shoppers buy it at a discount — say, 95 cents for $1 value — and spend the full value at stores that accept the currency." Wait, what are the first three words in that phrase? Businesses and individuals? Holy crap, that doesn't look public either!

 

In other words, it's a glorified coupon. Federal government prints money, people get money, business creates system that gives 1 FunBuck per .95 U.S. cents, and stores accept the FunBucks. Nowhere does it say that "these towns are printing dollar bills and using it as money."

 

USA Today reported last year in an article entitled “Communities print their own currency to keep cash flowing.” The goal is to help local economies in bad times.

 

Uh-oh, is that the same article I quoted? I believe it is. I've met my match. Or have I? Surely, a writer for the USA Today must grasp the legal significance of the word "community". Oh, wait, that's right. Ms. Bello is a WRITER. While I'm sure she is highly intelligent, she is not using "community" in the legal "a public governing entity" sense. She's using it in a "brotherhood" sense. Wonderful things happen when you use the senses of deduction that the Good Lord gave us.

 

This is legal and it is happening!! If people are willing to accept it is considered currency. Maybe not LEGAL TENDER but it is currency.

 

Wyoming's bill is for LEGAL TENDER. It's not for Ithaca FunBucks, it's for LEGAL TENDER to be coined by the state of Wyoming if the government collapses and was unable to make LEGAL TENDER. Honestly, I was just looking for a way to capitalize LEGAL TENDER again.

 

The Mint Act of April 2, 1792 established our system of coinage and set the proportional value of gold and silver, set the standard parts to make up gold and silver coins and regulated the value thereof. To my knowledge this act has never been repealed, so technically the Federal Reserve Notes that we use today are Unconstutional also.

 

Since you're not a lawyer (and I wouldn't reasonably expect you to know this), let me enlighten you on something. The "Mint Act" to which you're clinging like a starving pit bull on a porterhouse is what is called an enactment law. The Constitution sets the general rule: DO THIS or DO NOT DO THIS, but it doesn't provide the means by which to do something. That's where the "Mint Act" comes in. It sets the "how" to the Constitution's "what". And since you know that the Constitution is superior, if a law is in any way adverse to it, said part of said law is unconstitutional.

 

I never once said that what Wyoming was suggesting was CONSTITUTIONAL, as usual you read too much into a post and then go bat crazy!

 

Except that's exactly what you were doing. You were trying to drive a wedge between what I suggested (that the law was blatantly unconstitutional) by saying (1) the equivalent of "oh, but it most certainly isn't if it doesn't have the word DOLLAR on it" and (2) trying to say that your authority was either more on-point or superior. Both are incorrect, but not the point of discussion. You can't play an okey-doke when someone calls you on it.

 

BTW, I am perfectly aware of Ariticle 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, I did commit several years of my life studying history and political science.

 

Education is a good thing. However, you need more studying on this topic at least.

Edited February 27, 2012 by UVAObserver

[Ryan4VT 4,557]

I wouldn't have to be an ass if you would think before you posted things. You pretty much challenged me to contravert you by the snide "what else do u know about this concept". Controvert you I did by the way of the U.S. Constitution. I took a little more panache than I normally do because you've proven to be almost unhumanly hard-headed and wholly unapologetic when someone calls you on something you post that is incorrect or improper.

 

I'm going to go through your posts POINT BY LABORIOUS POINT to once again show you that you don't know this subject from a hole in the ground.

 

Article I, Section 8 specifically gives to Congress the power to coin money. It's their province, no one else.

The Tenth Amendment would not apply, because the Constitution gave that power to solely Congress, not to the states.

 

You started by saying:

 

 

 

Half of this is right. Private currencies are legal. I'm going to call them "FunBucks" for the rest of this post.

However, local currencies are not, never have been, and never will. Why? That would be a right given to the states.

See Article I, Section 8.

 

 

 

Not public.

 

 

 

Also not public.

 

 

 

Swing and a miss, strike three! Since we all obviously keep newspaper references that are three years old on hand, let me quote you this article I found from 4/5/2009 from the USA Today to prove you incorrect. "Businesses and individuals form a network to print currency. Shoppers buy it at a discount — say, 95 cents for $1 value — and spend the full value at stores that accept the currency." Wait, what are the first three words in that phrase? Businesses and individuals? Holy crap, that doesn't look public either!

 

In other words, it's a glorified coupon. Federal government prints money, people get money, business creates system that gives 1 FunBuck per .95 U.S. cents, and stores accept the FunBucks. Nowhere does it say that "these towns are printing dollar bills and using it as money."

 

 

 

Uh-oh, is that the same article I quoted? I believe it is. I've met my match. Or have I? Surely, a writer for the USA Today must grasp the legal significance of the word "community". Oh, wait, that's right. Ms. Bello is a WRITER. While I'm sure she is highly intelligent, she is not using "community" in the legal "a public governing entity" sense. She's using it in a "brotherhood" sense. Wonderful things happen when you use the senses of deduction that the Good Lord gave us.

 

 

 

Wyoming's bill is for LEGAL TENDER. It's not for Ithaca FunBucks, it's for LEGAL TENDER to be coined by the state of Wyoming if the government collapses and was unable to make LEGAL TENDER. Honestly, I was just looking for a way to capitalize LEGAL TENDER again.

 

 

 

Since you're not a lawyer (and I wouldn't reasonably expect you to know this), let me enlighten you on something. The "Mint Act" to which you're clinging like a starving pit bull on a porterhouse is what is called an enactment law. The Constitution sets the general rule: DO THIS or DO NOT DO THIS, but it doesn't provide the means by which to do something. That's where the "Mint Act" comes in. It sets the "how" to the Constitution's "what". And since you know that the Constitution is superior, if a law is in any way adverse to it, said part of said law is unconstitutional.

 

 

 

Except that's exactly what you were doing. You were trying to drive a wedge between what I suggested (that the law was blatantly unconstitutional) by saying (1) the equivalent of "oh, but it most certainly isn't if it doesn't have the word DOLLAR on it" and (2) trying to say that your authority was either more on-point or superior. Both are incorrect, but not the point of discussion. You can't play an okey-doke when someone calls you on it.

 

 

 

Education is a good thing. However, you need more studying on this topic at least.

 

BOOM!!!! You win. Hands down.

[bucfan64 309]

Just to clear a few things up!

 

1. When I used the word "local" I was not using it in the "community" or the " public governing entity" sense. I too was using it in the "brotherhood" sense.

 

Wonderful things will indeed happen when YOU TOO utilize your GOD given sense of deduction.

 

2. Nowhere, did I say that these towns were printing Dollar Bills or bucks! In fact I clearly stated in another post that these items were used as a form of "exchange" by being purchased with Legal Tender.

 

3. If I am willing to accept a bushel of apples for my labor, then Apples are considered a form of currency, that is all that I was implying when I stated "This is happening!" The "THIS" would be the implied transactions that indeed are taking place, I was not implying that COINAGE or the printing of actual Legal Tender was taking place.

 

4. I was never clinging to the MINT Bill, I only referenced it and stated that "to my knowledge,..." it had not been repealed. By simply stating it this way, I am in no way whatsoever insinuating that I have pledged my life, fortune and sacred honor on this one detail. It is just a statement, nothing more, once again, by utilizing the God given sense of deduction, one can easily determine this to be the case.

 

5. Wyoming could print LEGAL TENDER in the hypothetical situation that the U.S. Govt. is incapacitated and incapable of being restored. In this case, to assume that a "community," you know the "brotherhood" kind, would just sit on their hands and permit a complete societal breakdown out of honor and respect for an unforceable Constitution is ludicrous. If it seems that I was implying that they could go ahead and do it, I didn't mean for it to come across that way, I understand this printing of Legal Tender to be ONLY in the event of a total governmental collapse........which I find reasonable and quite proper of them to do. They are essentially laying out the ground work to restructure their society in the event of a total governmental (FED) collapse.

 

6. Sorry, if you misunderstood, but I was not trying to drive a wedge into your argument. What I meant by the comment "as long as it doesn't have the word dollar on it..." was that there are ways for entities (private) or local (you know the brotherhood kind of local) can coin money as long as they do not use the term Dollar. I am perfectly aware of Berkshares, and a few other sources that are traded locally in some communities, I do not need an attorney to tell me that they are perfectly legal. Likewise, in my other post I clarified that they were exchanged for $$$$$ and traded for discounts on products goods and services. By using the two good EYES that the Good Lord Gave us, one could easily see this. I have several COINS that are worth a considerable amount of money, they are not U.S minted coins and they do not include the word DOLLAR on them anywhere.

 

7. Next, nowhere in the Constitution does/did congress have the Constitutional authority to create the Federal Reserve. Remember," those powers not explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution are inherently denied to Congress" and thus the authority to establish a central bank never is/was given. I will admit that this debate went on for several years, especially with Jefferson and Hamilton, it appears that the debate ended in 1913. Many of us however, have refused to point out the obvious, the power to do so is not granted in the Constitution.

 

8. Finally, I cannot believe that we are having this argument, true I should look into the subject more, which is why I asked in my previous post the question, "What else do u know about this concept? "

 

But, I guess that is what I get for asking an honest question.

 

As far as the "Ass" comment, I'll admit it was reactionary, consider my apologies for the comment.

Edited February 27, 2012 by bucfan64

[legend11 32]

I took a little more panache than I normally do...

Panache would be a good moniker for the first ever tranny wrestler, whenever (s)he comes along.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Panache would be a good moniker for the first ever tranny wrestler, whenever (s)he comes along.

 

Since we have that settled, I motion for "Tonight's the Night" by Rod Stewart to be its entrance song.

[Hacker 82]

panache would be a good moniker for the first ever tranny wrestler, whenever (s)he comes along.

 

+1000

[bluefieldRocks 14]

Just to clear a few things up!

 

1. When I used the word "local" I was not using it in the "community" or the " public governing entity" sense. I too was using it in the "brotherhood" sense.

 

Wonderful things will indeed happen when YOU TOO utilize your GOD given sense of deduction.

 

2. Nowhere, did I say that these towns were printing Dollar Bills or bucks! In fact I clearly stated in another post that these items were used as a form of "exchange" by being purchased with Legal Tender.

 

3. If I am willing to accept a bushel of apples for my labor, then Apples are considered a form of currency, that is all that I was implying when I stated "This is happening!" The "THIS" would be the implied transactions that indeed are taking place, I was not implying that COINAGE or the printing of actual Legal Tender was taking place.

 

4. I was never clinging to the MINT Bill, I only referenced it and stated that "to my knowledge,..." it had not been repealed. By simply stating it this way, I am in no way whatsoever insinuating that I have pledged my life, fortune and sacred honor on this one detail. It is just a statement, nothing more, once again, by utilizing the God given sense of deduction, one can easily determine this to be the case.

 

5. Wyoming could print LEGAL TENDER in the hypothetical situation that the U.S. Govt. is incapacitated and incapable of being restored. In this case, to assume that a "community," you know the "brotherhood" kind, would just sit on their hands and permit a complete societal breakdown out of honor and respect for an unforceable Constitution is ludicrous. If it seems that I was implying that they could go ahead and do it, I didn't mean for it to come across that way, I understand this printing of Legal Tender to be ONLY in the event of a total governmental collapse........which I find reasonable and quite proper of them to do. They are essentially laying out the ground work to restructure their society in the event of a total governmental (FED) collapse.

 

6. Sorry, if you misunderstood, but I was not trying to drive a wedge into your argument. What I meant by the comment "as long as it doesn't have the word dollar on it..." was that there are ways for entities (private) or local (you know the brotherhood kind of local) can coin money as long as they do not use the term Dollar. I am perfectly aware of Berkshares, and a few other sources that are traded locally in some communities, I do not need an attorney to tell me that they are perfectly legal. Likewise, in my other post I clarified that they were exchanged for $$$$$ and traded for discounts on products goods and services. By using the two good EYES that the Good Lord Gave us, one could easily see this. I have several COINS that are worth a considerable amount of money, they are not U.S minted coins and they do not include the word DOLLAR on them anywhere.

 

7. Next, nowhere in the Constitution does/did congress have the Constitutional authority to create the Federal Reserve. Remember," those powers not explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution are inherently denied to Congress" and thus the authority to establish a central bank never is/was given. I will admit that this debate went on for several years, especially with Jefferson and Hamilton, it appears that the debate ended in 1913. Many of us however, have refused to point out the obvious, the power to do so is not granted in the Constitution.

 

8. Finally, I cannot believe that we are having this argument, true I should look into the subject more, which is why I asked in my previous post the question, "What else do u know about this concept? "

 

But, I guess that is what I get for asking an honest question.

 

As far as the "Ass" comment, I'll admit it was reactionary, consider my apologies for the comment.

 

[Deleted Account 5,203]

 

GIF Master strikes again! I literally LOLed. What a detailed GIF.