At 2/12/14 11:26 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Because it states that Government is the only institution that is allowed to mint currency.

No, it states that only Congress has the authority to coin money. The Constitution goes on to say that Congress can do anything it believes to be necessary and proper to achieve this goal, and that would include outsourcing of this to a private company.

At 2/13/14 10:18 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/12/14 11:26 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Because it states that Government is the only institution that is allowed to mint currency.

No, it states that only Congress has the authority to coin money. The Constitution goes on to say that Congress can do anything it believes to be necessary and proper to achieve this goal, and that would include outsourcing of this to a private company.

Well Congress is the Government. Congress can not do whatever it wants with the money supply. That is unless people like you let that happen. You can't bend the meaning of the words that dictate that only Congress has the power to Mint the currency for if you do than your constitution means fuck all and should be burned and ignored cause it is not effective. This is not up for debate or opinion. Please cite your links where it states that congress can do whatever it wants and break it's own rules.

So anyway...what about those Iranian warships?

(Or has LL1 turned this into a Necro thread by hijacking it with his conspiracy theories?)

At 2/13/14 01:19 PM, TheMason wrote: So anyway...what about those Iranian warships?

(Or has LL1 turned this into a Necro thread by hijacking it with his conspiracy theories?)

So the Constitution is a conspiracy now ?

At 2/13/14 01:34 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/13/14 01:19 PM, TheMason wrote: So anyway...what about those Iranian warships?

(Or has LL1 turned this into a Necro thread by hijacking it with his conspiracy theories?)

So the Constitution is a conspiracy now ?

;;;
Of course it is, set up to make it impossible for the President to be a dictator (or in those days they thought KING)
Which is exactly why the Constitution was set up the way it was.

The Bankers of Europe were one of the main reasons the people in America created the 13 States of America,

As a coin collector the history of what was done to control & keep control of the states with currency , or more rightly the lack of spendable coins was unbelievable, its part of the reason the US Constitution has the clauses about currency & NO PRESIDENT or anyone else should have allowed a private bank(s) to get you off the gold standard, if paper currency was backed by gold & silver with other precious metals as well, with weights & measures in place to protect your currency there would be no incidences in history of monitory collapse. The US Federal Reserve would be unable to exist. The entire world financial system would be completely solvent...but it is almost impossible for aGovernments & big business to steal from you your savings the value of your labor etc without the system as it presently operates !

At 2/13/14 12:06 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: ...

My explanation was better~

At 2/13/14 02:38 PM, Little-Kinky wrote:

At 2/13/14 12:06 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: ...

My explanation was better~

No it was not. If Congress can change the rules anyway they see fit then there was no point in creating the Constitution to begin with. The creation of the Federal mint should have went to vote not dictated by Congress. Federal Reserve Notes are counterfeit by definition.

At 2/13/14 03:18 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/13/14 02:38 PM, Little-Kinky wrote:

At 2/13/14 12:06 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: ...

My explanation was better~

No it was not. If Congress can change the rules anyway they see fit then there was no point in creating the Constitution to begin with. The creation of the Federal mint should have went to vote not dictated by Congress. Federal Reserve Notes are counterfeit by definition.

They didn't change any rules. Congress has the power to mint coins, and it's generally accepted they also have the power to print money. In a prescedent case, it was said..

"...we think the sound construction of the Constitutionmust allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people.Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional."

They created the Department Of The Treasury, the mints, and the Federal Reserve to do the job.

At 2/13/14 01:34 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/13/14 01:19 PM, TheMason wrote: So anyway...what about those Iranian warships?

(Or has LL1 turned this into a Necro thread by hijacking it with his conspiracy theories?)

So the Constitution is a conspiracy now ?

Nope.

Just your line of thought.

At 2/13/14 05:05 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 2/13/14 01:34 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/13/14 01:19 PM, TheMason wrote: So anyway...what about those Iranian warships?

(Or has LL1 turned this into a Necro thread by hijacking it with his conspiracy theories?)

So the Constitution is a conspiracy now ?

Nope.

Just your line of thought.

I link to the Constitution and quote it word for word and somehow it's a conspiracy according to you LOL. What the problem is that you think that the Congress can do whatever they deem necessary with monetary policy when this is not the case. Congress has rules to abide by as per the Constitution of the USA.

Section 8: Powers of Congress
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Congress does not have the power to turn over control of the money supply to the Federal Mint. If I am wrong then please show me where in the Constitution that it states that Congress has the power to turn over control of the money supply to another institution.

At 2/13/14 05:18 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: If I am wrong then please show me where in the Constitution that it states that Congress has the power to turn over control of the money supply to another institution.

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers"

Found in the same place you found your line.

Enacting a law allowing a private entity under the eye of the government to make money fits here just fine.

At 2/13/14 05:18 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

Congress does not have the power to turn over control of the money supply to the Federal Mint. If I am wrong then please show me where in the Constitution that it states that Congress has the power to turn over control of the money supply to another institution.

I know I probably drive Camaro nuts sometimes since I am more of an originalist in my interpretation of the Constitution. So when it comes to issues like this I like to refer to what the Founders wrote or ruled on these types of issues.

In 1819 the Marshall Court (which set the stage for Constitutional Law, at least until the 1920s and the ascension of the Progressive Incorporation Doctrine) ruled on the issue of a central bank in McCulloch v. Maryland. In it, which was ruled on by a unanimous decision, Marshall cited that the Congress DID have the power to establish entities/agencies to execute their constitutionally derived duties/responsibilities. There were some requirements: it has to be reasonable and not expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

So the Founders themselves, you know the guys who wrote the Constitution and ratified it, interpreted the Constitution this way.

****

But if you're so concerned about strict adherence to what the Constitution says, why do you consistently argue against the 2nd Amendment? I mean, it is actually very clear and unambiguous. (Feel free to respond in the proper thread.)

Furthermore, I'm not defending the Fed. I think we're playing with forces that the experts don't fully understand. But I don't think Ron & Rand are right on the unconstitutionality of it or our fiat currency.

At 2/13/14 05:36 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers"

This has nothing to do with monetary police.

Found in the same place you found your line.

Enacting a law allowing a private entity under the eye of the government to make money fits here just fine.

Cite links to your sources.

At 2/13/14 05:56 PM, TheMason wrote:

But if you're so concerned about strict adherence to what the Constitution says, why do you consistently argue against the 2nd Amendment? I mean, it is actually very clear and unambiguous.

I don't have to agree with everything in the American constitution and I have rights to freedom of speech and am entitled to my own opinions just like how Iran is free to run their ships in any international waters. If you are so worried about your 2nd amendment rights or any rights for that matter then I suggest you do your part to stop the Government from trying to take these rights away or limit them. It's not me trying to disarm your nation it's your Government that is so I suggest you take it up with them.

OK, I've created a Constitution thread, so let's move that tangent over there and return this thread to Iran's fleet.

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1360808

At 2/9/14 08:09 PM, Warforger wrote: It means nothing and has always been something any country with somewhat of a navy and a coastline has done. You see this in the War Of 1812 where battles were fought in the Pacific between American sailors and the British Navy, before America even had a Pacific Shoreline!

At 2/9/14 07:42 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: just lob a few SAM's at them, don't hit them but just enough to get close to show them who's the boss.

...... SAM stands for Surface to Air Missiles, and are intended for aircraft.

If Iran can get a warship to float in the air, then we're all screwed because real life has turned into a Final Fantasy game. :(

In all seriousness, though, I agree it means little. Who knows, maybe their commander will let them take shore leave so we can show them all the things they're missing, like reruns of Jersey Shore.

It feels to me kinda like this, only swap NK for Iran. Sure they get some PR out of it, but it feels like a kid holding his hand a centimeter away from a sibling saying "I'm not touching you!"