I guess they proved he tried to counterfeit US coins... oh wait, no, that's not what he was charged with... he was charged with "conspiracy to possess and sell coins in resemblance and similitude of genuine coins of the United States." (http://statesmansentinel.com/creator-liberty-dollar-jail). I hope they don't ever go to Chuck E. Cheeses and see their coins, or amusement parks, or any place that makes round tokens of approximate thickness to coins... oh, btw, here is a picture of what he was making...
Yup, that dollar sign with two lines through it looks EXACTLY like what the dollar sign the Fed uses and is on my keyboard ($). Uh oh, no it's not... well, he did say "TRUST IN GOD" which is on all US coins too, and... oh, wait, nope, thats "In God We Trust". I guess using "dollars" on his coin is wrong because the US has exclusive right to that denomination... oh wait, many world currencies use "dollars" as their currency, with no relation to the US dollar. Well, he DID piss off the government, and we all know that is a Federal Felony...
Of course, back to the original article, the public will probably agree that it was a justifiable action because they said:
“Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism”Everyone is a terrorist... I guess eventually, someone who does a rolling stop through a remote stop sign will be a domestic terrorist because they have a disregard for one minor law, and if you disregard minor laws, its a gateway drug, er, offense, to violating bigger laws that are actually based in terror prevention. Demonize the offender by "poisoning the well" and no one wants to be the juror that votes to let a "terrorist" go free.
The article original article also says:
"Article I, section 8, clause 5 of the United States Constitution delegates to Congress the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. This power was delegated to Congress in order to establish and preserve a uniform standard of value and to insure a singular monetary system for all purchases and debts in the United States, public and private. Along with the power to coin money, Congress has the concurrent power to restrain the circulation of money which is not issued under its own authority in order to protect and preserve the constitutional currency for the benefit of all citizens of the nation."The specific article giving congress power to coin and regulate was given (Article I, section 8, clause 5) which is great, but then they say "Along with the power to coin money, Congress has the concurrent power to restrain the circulation of money which is not issued under its own authority" which I haven't been able to find in the Constitution...
Why not? Because...
Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 533 (1869). http://supreme.justia.com/us/75/533/index.html
Congress having undertaken, in the exercise of undisputed constitutional power, to provide a currency for the whole country, may constitutionally secure the benefit of it to the people by appropriate legislation, and to that end may restrain, by suitable enactments, the circulation of any notes not issued under its own authority.
So how did the Supreme Court come to the conclusion that obviously the Constitution intended Congress to be the sole purveyor of currency and coin in the Country? Beats me... especially since many banks used to issue THEIR OWN currency, stores had their own currency, states had their own currency... just about everyone had their own currency even though the Federal Government was printing the "real" money. It wasn't until 1913 that the Federal Reserve (aka "The Fed" aka "the Bernanke NerBanke") was created to establish a federal money policy to begin with...
The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as The Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. It was created in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, largely in response to a series of financial panics, particularly a severe panic in 1907.
Ah, so in response to PANIC!!!!
So where the 9th and 10th Amendments say:
- Ninth Amendment – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
- Tenth Amendment – The powers 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.
All that to say, nothing can be fixed with "big government" until a check and balance system is applied to the Supreme Court as well. My own opinion, is that it should not be a lifetime appointment, a candidate for a justice position should have minimum years experience AS A JUDGE, and that state votes should occur to ratify appointment to the bench, as "the states" and "the people" are the ones rapidly losing rights "respectively" otherwise granted to them by the 9th and 10th Amendments.
The Supreme Court, and every lower court needs to go back to the basics and realize that fundamentally, aside from a few very limited powers, the STATES AND THE PEOPLE retain the rest of the rights, whatever rights those may be.