Talk:Legal Tender Cases

message: Reasons for the semiprotection are given at User talk:71.174.142.108#Disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotection 

message: This article currently claims that "Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution explicitly forbids the states from ... making anything but gold and silver coin 'legal tender', ...".
Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states: "No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; ...".
Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution does not use the term "legal tender". The term "legal tender" is defined differently than the noun "tender". - Servant David (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have corrected the quotation (in the usual rapid Wikipedia fashion).198.228.201.152 (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution 

message: Originalism section for instance tiptoes around the fact that during the Constitutional Convention a vote was taken to strip the power to issue "bills of credit" aka paper money from the draft US Constitution. This language in the draft allowed the Federal Government to issue paper money as under the Articles of Confederation.
A question posed by Madison during that vote as to whether it would be sufficient to just ban the making of paper money legal tender was overwhelmingly replied to in the negative by other members. In other words it "would NOT be sufficient" to just ban the making of paper money a legal tender and that banning the "issuance" of paper money would be sufficient. In other words because the Federal Government could not issue paper money, it could not find a pretext to make it legal tender.
The article also implies that since paper money was issued under the Articles of Confederation it would therefore also be allowed under the Constitution, conveniently ignoring the fact that issuing paper money was explicitly allowed by language included in the Articles, while that same language was overwhelmingly stripped from the Constitution.
The text below is a partial record on the vote to strip the power to "emit" bills of credit from the US Constitution.
Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS. striking out the words will leave room still for notes of a responsible minister which will do all the good without the mischief. The Monied interest will oppose the plan of Government, if paper emissions be not prohibited.
Mr. GHORUM was for striking out, without inserting any prohibition. if the words stand they may suggest and lead to the measure.
Col. [FN20] MASON had doubts on the subject. Congs. he thought would not have the power unless it were expressed. Though he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet as he could not foresee all emergences, he was unwilling to tie the hands of the Legislature. He observed that the late war could not have been carried on, had such a prohibition existed.
Mr. GHORUM. The power as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing.
Mr. MERCER was a friend to paper money, though in the present state & temper of America, he should neither propose nor approve of such a measure. He was consequently opposed to a prohibition of it altogether. It will stamp suspicion on the Government to deny it a discretion on this point. It was impolitic also to excite the opposition of all those who were friends to paper money. The people of property would be sure to be on the side of the plan, and it was impolitic to purchase their further attachment with the loss of the opposite class of Citizens
Mr. ELSEWORTH thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By witholding the power from the new Governt. more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else. Paper money can in no case be necessary. Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good.
Mr. RANDOLPH, notwithstanding his antipathy to paper money, could not agree to strike out the words, as he could not foresee all the occasions which [FN21] might arise.
Mr. WILSON. It will have a most salutary influence on the credit of the U. States to remove the possibility of paper money. This expedient can never succeed whilst its mischiefs are remembered, and as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources.
Mr. BUTLER. remarked that paper was a legal tender in no Country in Europe. He was urgent for disarming the Government of such a power.
Mr. MASON was still averse to tying the hands of the Legislature altogether. If there was no example in Europe as just remarked, it might be observed on the other side, that there was none in which the Government was restrained on this head.
Mr. READ, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations.
Mr. LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words "(and emit bills")
On the motion for striking out
N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN22] 71.184.176.50 (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material looks slanted in favor of paper money 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Legal Tender Cases. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070713134603/http://www.supremecourthistory.org/04_library/subs_volumes/04_c15_i.html to http://www.supremecourthistory.org/04_library/subs_volumes/04_c15_i.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609130829/http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/115-8/Paulsen.pdf to http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/115-8/Paulsen.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/31-3/Natelson%20Online%20-%20Paper%20Money.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified