Quantcast

Do You Think States Should Be Allowed to Mint Their Own Currency?

ABC News U.S. 2013/02/07 21:00:00
Related Topics: Currency
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Will Virginia start minting its own currency? It’s an idea worth considering, according to the state’s House of Delegates.

The lower chamber passed a bill Monday to study the possibility. The legislation, proposed by Manassas Republican Del. Robert Marshall, would create a new joint subcommittee made up of lawmakers, plus two outside experts, to “study the feasibility of a metallic-based monetary unit.”

The committee could spend up to $17,440 and would present its recommendations before the legislative session starts in 2014. Translation: Ten people would advise Virginia on whether to start making its own currency on a gold or silver standard.

minting currency

Read More: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/virgi...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Transquesta 2013/02/07 21:30:32
    No
    Transquesta
    +36
    Article 1, Section 10, The U.S. Constitution:

    "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything 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."

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • HAlex1972 2013/02/22 11:21:29
    No
    HAlex1972
    Unconstitutional
  • Chest Rockwell 2013/02/18 19:45:13
    Yes
    Chest Rockwell
    Yes! Yes! Yes! Last I heard the dollar has lost 97% of it's value since the Federal Reserve ILLEGALLY seized the exclusive right to print dollars. We have been led to believe inflation is a natural occurence. This is a lie! Inflation is a result of irrresponsible monetary policy: printing too many dollars! It is the concept of Supply & demand in action. More dollars mean the ones in circulation become worth less. It is a hidden tax or a nefarious way of STEALING from the American people without having to put their hand in our pocket. The FED has robbed the American people of TRILLIONS & TRILLIONS of dollars this way.
    Yes, states should ALL start printing money. With 50 states printing money the free market would safeguard our interests since the State with the most responsible monetary policy would have a highly sought after currency and those states with irresponsible policy would be left to fail.
    I doubt this would ever happen. The Fed has the ability to print 100-dollar bills for 8 cents. Nice profit margin, huh? How far do you think these evil bankers would go to protect this racket?
  • TheR 2013/02/18 09:55:50
  • Steve 2013/02/18 00:01:54
    Yes
    Steve
    States ARE allowed -- this is in the Constitution. But it will have to be gold. Since it would be legal tender only in that state, it will not save state government any money.
  • Jayne 2013/02/15 01:01:54
    No
    Jayne
    +1
    Doing that would be just silly. Imagine being restricted to one state spending. Just won't work.
  • w2xad 2013/02/14 21:26:16
    No
    w2xad
    NO, that was tried after the Revolutionary War and it did NOT work.
  • ddd 2013/02/14 16:04:36
    Yes
    ddd
    +1
    I think they are allowed, read article one section 10, it is explicitly 100% in their power provided it is gold or silver. In addition this is an excellent idea. Money is simply a good, and like all other goods when government has a monopoly we are worse off. Monopoly is bad, and government management is bad. Combine the two and we are worse off. In this scenario, it is devalued constantly. If we had competitors the federal government would have an incentive to not devalue our currency, and we could have a choice. Paper and gold-backed dollars were in circulation during and after the civil war, it works fine. Even though Virginia's coins would be government-made their value could not be set by the government. So why on earth is anyone is favor of zero competition, government-run constant devaluation, and no choice?
  • william keegan 2013/02/14 15:28:50
    No
    william keegan
    An Amendment to the COTUS would be required to authorize it.

    Even though BHO is doing everything in his power, and then some, to debase our currency, the COTUS does not permit the states to get in to the money coining or printing business.

    There is nothing in the law that prohibits private citizens from accepting some foreign currency in exchange for goods and services.
  • ddd william... 2013/02/14 20:22:40
    ddd
    dude... read article one section ten. It explicitly says in black and white states are allowed to have silver and gold currency, so a amendment would be required to make it so they could not mint their own currency.
  • william... ddd 2013/02/15 05:49:42
    william keegan
    Dude... the clause you cited reads: "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."

    States are prohibited from coining money period! The States cannot use anything but gold and silver coin ... . The provisioning of the restriction to only using gold and silver coin is not an authorization to mint coins that are specifically prohibited in the same clause.

    As I commented earlier, an Amendment taking away the prohibition from States coining money would be necessary before any state could legally coin its own money.
  • ddd william... 2013/02/15 15:13:04 (edited)
    ddd
    It says "make anything but gold and silver coin"
    If you want to play semantics "make" means to create. That means authorize it, or create it.
    So would it be legal, under your definition, for Virginia to either contract the work out to a private mint, or say private mints are allowed to make gold and silver coin themselves? They are not the ones physically making it, but they are making it "tender in payment of debts".
  • william... ddd 2013/02/16 03:42:00
    william keegan
    What do you understand: "No State shall … coin Money;…” to mean?
  • ddd william... 2013/02/16 06:28:45 (edited)
    ddd
    After it says "coin money" there is a very important but for Gold and silver.
  • william... ddd 2013/02/16 14:52:14
    william keegan
    The reference to gold and silver is a restriction on the states from designating some sort of "fiat currency" not an authorization to coin money which is specifically prohibited.

    The constitution and other founding documents were written in plain English, and unlike today’s legislation, there was no attempt to hide the meaning of the words and phrases in some sort of legalese that would require interpretation by specially trained lawyers. The words mean what they say and say what they mean.
  • ddd william... 2013/02/16 16:03:43
    ddd
    So, what you are saying is states were not allowed a fiat currency, so they are only allowed to use gold or silver, but they cannot make gold and silver money? Why would the constitution ban something than reauthorize it in the same sentence? Are you nullifying a section of article one section ten because you cant, or don't want to understand it?
  • william... ddd 2013/02/17 21:17:24
    william keegan
    Excuse Me! Can you read and understand the English Language?

    To reiterate: "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."

    Do you actually believe the phrase "coin Money" means the same as the phrase "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts"?
  • ddd william... 2013/02/17 22:36:38 (edited)
    ddd
    Bills of credit means paper money, and Coin money means, well create money. As far as i'm concerned it outlines two rules and one exception after those two rules. They outlined the rules then the exceptions, that is how normal people write english. So yes i can read. I consider "tender in payment of debts" to mean money. Why? whip out a dollar bill, on the side with george washington, on the left under the seal that says *United states * federal reserve system* it says "this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private". Thats because money is tender for debts, which is exactly what the constitution says the states are allowed to make, provided it is gold or silver. Those three clauses deal with how currency is to be provided, they are all connected. The founders were very specific and explicit about what they said so someone would not intentionally misinterpret the constitution in order to put forth their stupid idea.

    So no they can't make money, unless it is gold or silver.
  • william... ddd 2013/02/18 16:20:20
    william keegan
    "So no they can't make money, unless it is gold or silver."

    And the states are forbidden to "coin Money"!

    My point, exactly!
  • ddd william... 2013/02/18 16:22:55 (edited)
    ddd
    Do you understand how english works? the exception came after the rule, that makes it an exception. Let me rephrase it in a way you may understand: no state shall coin money, print money, or make anything but gold and silver money.

    The exception here is gold and silver, which is what Virginia wants. Please understand how grammar works and stop trying to misrepresent the constitution. You are misrepresenting the constitution, and it is intellectually dishonest.
  • william... ddd 2013/02/18 16:36:11
    william keegan
    You don't need to rephrase anything. The COTUS is written in plain language. If the framers intended to provide for the states to coin money, they would not have included the prohibition!

    Why do you believe the COTUS does not mean what is written?
  • ddd william... 2013/02/18 23:40:04
    ddd
    The founders did not want states to have their own currency that was not backed by anything. Theres are more issues when that is done on a state level rather than a federal level. Albeit it is horrible on the federal level, we just haven't had an alternative in nearly 100 years. They, however, figured it was fine to use gold and silver on a state level because at the time that was used as currency, (hell spanish gold currency was used as currency) and states could not control its value. As a result They said states cannot create money, nor print money. However they fallowed this up with an exception for gold and silver because that would not do any harm, and they were concerned a federally controlled monetary policy could lead to drastic harm and it is wise to have an alternative. Hence this is why they had a sole exception. Please stop misinterpreting the constitution.
  • william... ddd 2013/02/19 05:47:59
    william keegan
    You seem to have been visiting some psychic medium and have been in contact with the framers in order to know what they were thinking.

    I, not having that opportunity to consort with the founders, have to read what they wrote to know what they meant.

    Art. 1, Sect. 8: "The congress shall have Power... To coin Money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin..."

    Art. 1, Sect. 10: No State shall ... coin Money..."

    Amend. 10: "The power not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    The Constitution delegates the power to coin money to the Congress of the United States and prohibits the states by the Constitution to coin Money.
  • ddd william... 2013/02/19 22:10:21
    ddd
    I can't talk to dead people but i can read what they wrote.
    And you should read what they wrote outside the constitution to understand their intent, instead of just misinterpreting it.

    All powers delegated to the federal government are federal government powers only unless there is an exception somewhere else. Article one section ten, in part, deals with the states power. Amendments came after the original constitution so it payed to be more clear, so it payed to be redundant in this case.
    A prime example of this is the power to barrow. States have as much authority to barrow money as the federal government does, even though it says it is a federal power in article one section 8.

    Now states are not allowed to coin money, unless it is gold or silver. What is with you and ignoring the exception right after the rule. I mean come on, it says and black and white it is allowed, and this is getting old, and it is intellectual dishonestly. You may think its a bad idea but they have the authority.
  • SW 2013/02/14 15:23:17 (edited)
    No
    SW
    Read the constitution. Gee I'm in a state can I print my own money too? SWBucks! You can mint coins though... as long as their worth is backed by themselves like if they're gold.
  • christopher gray 2013/02/14 13:19:52 (edited)
    Yes
    christopher gray
    +2
    Article 1, Section 10, The U.S. Constitution: "No state shall...make anything but gold and silver coin..."

    That means that the states ARE AUTHORIZED to MINT coins of gold and silver,(which are self-backing if you will) so long as they DON'T do something silly like PRINT paper money, or for example, mint alloy coins that are backed by the "full faith and credit of" the state of Virginia.

    Until the Federal Reserve is either disbanded or regulated by the federal government, or until the United States returns to the gold standard, one cannot fault a state for losing faith in "money" backed by nothing but the assumption that the US economy will never collapse...again...
  • SW christo... 2013/02/14 15:24:23
    SW
    Oh yeah you can do that... As long as the worth of it isn't backed by the fed... Otherwise how could I have my William Shatner coin collection!
  • Edbert 2013/02/14 13:12:18
    Yes
    Edbert
    +1
    Google what a fern is, and I do not mean the plant, it is spelled FRN. Your "dollar" should be worth around $3,000 in gold. But that ~$2,999 has been stolen slowly from your wallet by an international cartel of bankers.

    I do not think that states making their own currency is the answer, but it cannot be a worse deal for the consumer and taxpayer than what congress and the POTUS have given us with the federal reserve, which is also unconstitutional.
  • ellie. 2013/02/14 12:43:13
    No
    ellie.
    See how it worked last time.
  • Straud1976 2013/02/14 10:15:01
    No
    Straud1976
    What a waste of time and money.
  • disclaimer 2013/02/14 06:24:57
    No
    disclaimer
    Isn't that illegal?
  • christo... disclaimer 2013/02/14 13:34:58
    christopher gray
    +4
    No, it isn't, but the Federal Reserve is.
  • disclaimer christo... 2013/02/14 19:28:05
    disclaimer
    I'm going to quote the top comment here:

    Article 1, Section 10, The U.S. Constitution:

    "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything 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."

    Are you trolling?
  • ddd disclaimer 2013/02/14 20:26:23
    ddd
    +1
    see the "make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts"
    yeah states can make gold and silver currency.
  • disclaimer ddd 2013/02/15 05:51:49
    disclaimer
    So you can pay your debts in gold or silver. You can't make a *currency* and you can't use it in stores.
  • ddd disclaimer 2013/02/15 15:25:56
    ddd
    you are intentionally misinterpreting the constitution because you don't like an idea. Well at least you are not expanding the constitution's power this time. Now what do you think "tender in payment of debts means" that means money. So for it to be legal to use, what you are saying is i have to barrow something, and then pay for it. So i could buy a drink, open it, and then pay for it? Debt is anything you possess or own that you have yet to pay for. That happens virtually every time you buy something.
  • disclaimer ddd 2013/02/16 06:39:25
    disclaimer
    You're damned right I don't like the idea of states having their own currencies. I'm interpreting it how I see it--states are not allowed to coin money. And reading further, it appears as if "gold and silver coin" may be used in payment of debts. At the time, the government used gold and silver to make their coins. Essentially, you may not use anything but government currency in any type of transaction. States may not make their own currencies.
  • ddd disclaimer 2013/02/16 07:27:22 (edited)
    ddd
    Well, thats if you believe legal tender laws are constitutional.
    Also read up on the liberty dollar.
    And what is with people not liking different currencies? minting money was originally a business. People had choice, and companies competed. Hell with the gold standard they used to offer their customers your money actually deflated, rather than inflated. Money that gains value? sign me up! Government monopolized it and now we get money that loses value each year, it has not actual value, and it has a commissar at the fed that can change its value and ruin your life at any time. So now we have terrible money, and we are still taxed on it. I would prefer having a choice in what i deal with, or at least having a state back it with something with actual value.

    Also, you changed government policy, so the constitution is modernized and updated to reflect your bad ideas automatically? That requires a constitutional amendment. Gold and Silver was not a placeholder name for money, it actually means something. So, in reality what you should have said was "you may not use anything but government currency in any type of transaction, but the currency must be gold or silver".
  • disclaimer ddd 2013/02/17 00:11:40
    disclaimer
    Something that was written on the original Constitution is not constitutional. Right. The guy who made the Liberty dollar was arrested for violating currency laws. Here's the problem with different currencies: how do you know which one is being used at what location at what time? What about the conversion rates? There's a reason why the Eurozone consolidated down to a single currency.
  • ddd disclaimer 2013/02/17 09:19:57 (edited)
    ddd
    You aren't really citing the eurozone as an economic success?

    Ok now i will explain why we should have competing currencies.

    Money was spontaneous, and was originally created by individuals looking for a profit. As a result they competed to have the strongest medium of exchange, so there was deflation, rather than inflation, because it was backed with gold and silver.

    In todays economy you would be able to choose what currency you had your money in, what is was backed by, et cetera. As far as you, the citizen, is concerned you would simply buy things with differing types of dollars. Currency with differing value was around during and after the civil war, people set up exchange rates and organized contracts around them. Prior to thats banks and institutions had a myriad of different currencies. The U.S. government would still deal in dollars, and it would collect taxes in whatever version of the dollar you made your money in, and then convert that variant of the dollar into a U.S. dollar in the exact the same way someone converts a euro into a yen.

    Companies would simply accept different amount of dollars. Next time you are on amazon, paying with a credit card, there is a little thing you can scroll down to and pay in Pounds, Euros, or a myriad of other currencies. Exchange rates ...





    You aren't really citing the eurozone as an economic success?

    Ok now i will explain why we should have competing currencies.

    Money was spontaneous, and was originally created by individuals looking for a profit. As a result they competed to have the strongest medium of exchange, so there was deflation, rather than inflation, because it was backed with gold and silver.

    In todays economy you would be able to choose what currency you had your money in, what is was backed by, et cetera. As far as you, the citizen, is concerned you would simply buy things with differing types of dollars. Currency with differing value was around during and after the civil war, people set up exchange rates and organized contracts around them. Prior to thats banks and institutions had a myriad of different currencies. The U.S. government would still deal in dollars, and it would collect taxes in whatever version of the dollar you made your money in, and then convert that variant of the dollar into a U.S. dollar in the exact the same way someone converts a euro into a yen.

    Companies would simply accept different amount of dollars. Next time you are on amazon, paying with a credit card, there is a little thing you can scroll down to and pay in Pounds, Euros, or a myriad of other currencies. Exchange rates are constant everywhere and readily available, and paying in differing bank's currency would work the exact same way, but now you are allowed a choice in which currency you want, your currency gains value, has actual value, and the government can't devalue and steal your life savings.

    Government monopolized an entire industry, and now you are paying for it with inflation. Since the government can steal everything you have earned at any moment, and it taxes us in inflation, we are not better off with only a public dollar. We are only worse off, because in addition to inflation we miss out on the deflation bonus, that only happens with private currency, before we pay the inflation tax. The dollar should not be abolished, but it should have to compete in this country.

    The maker of the liberty dollar was arrested on a technicality. If you read about it, the government really hunted this guy down and stretched laws to convict him. Read up on it, he didn't break any law, and the case is the epitome of disgusting.

    also in your first sentence, "Something that was written on the original Constitution is not constitutional" what were you referring to?
    (more)
  • disclaimer ddd 2013/02/17 20:07:56
    disclaimer
    I think we're done here. You've transitioned from "slightly meaningful conversation" to "complete gibberish."
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 29 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/01 11:52:43

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals