Any Chance The Langboard's will win their in case?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

13 hours ago, BillJones said:

 

The Gold Surrender Order was issued during the depths of The Great Depression, and the entire country, including FDR were desperate to find a solution it. FDR said that he was willing to try most any proposal. If it worked, great; if it didn’t, chuck it and try another idea.

 

FDR had huge majorities in the House and Senate. The GOP had almost ceased to exist, and whatever FDR wanted, he got. Therefore he was given the power to take the country off the gold standard in a de facto manner.

 

One of the benefits was a cheaper dollar, pegged at the over the market rate of $35 an ounce. That was one of the reason why he called in the gold coinage. FDR did not want anyone to make windfall profits from the artificial increase in the price of gold. The devalued dollar made American exports cheaper which, it was hoped would increase aggregate demand and boost the economy.

In order to avoid confusion, the quote in your post that starts with "I'm not a lawyer.." was not me. It was jtryka.

On to your post: The President had (and has) the power, with or without any majority and there was no de facto surrender of congressional constitutional authority.

But, in the interest of an interesting conundrum that resulted from the actions of President Nixon, did (and has) the U.S. economy benefited  from the actions of both Presidents, given the silver to gold value (or devalue in the case of silver) and the dollar to gold and dollar to silver rate (I use the word "rate" tongue in cheek), or did we shoot ourselves in both feet?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

12 hours ago, jtryka said:

How is changing the value of the dollar from 1/20.67 oz of gold to 1/35 ounce of gold not "regulating the value" of money?

U.S citizens were prevented from holding monetary gold. The dollar value was not changed, it was balanced on the world market. The dollar PRICE was set @ $34.00; the value price has always been subject to change based on the world price.

The dollar monetary unit was established in 1792, and contained 24-3/4 grains of fine gold and was based on the world price of $19.39 a troy ounce (480 grains).

I am sure you know this "value" was changed in 1834, 1837, 1972 and 1973, resetting the dollar price.

The value of the dollar was not changed, the value of gold was.

Restrictions in privately owning gold were of course removed in 1974. Ownership of a dollar is not a value ownership, it is a price ownership, is it not?  

[Conder101]

13 hours ago, jtryka said:

How is changing the value of the dollar from 1/20.67 oz of gold to 1/35 ounce of gold not "regulating the value" of money?

It probably would be, but the President didn't do that, the Congress did and they DO have the power to regulate the value of money.  (Gold reserve act of Jan 30, 1934.  Passed by the House on the 20th, the Senate on the 27th and signed by the President on the 30th.)

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

13 hours ago, Nutmeg Coin said:

I don't think a President has ever been able to change the results of a court case like this, plus it is not a priority and he would gain limited political capital, and he is not on very thick ice at this point.  

It was not a criminal case.

The President does not have Constitutional authority to pardon in this matter. What exactly would the President be pardoning or, more to the point, who?

As a passing thought, I think the ice is a lot thicker than your measurement. The political gain, limited or none at all, is of no consequence in the case, unless one wants to opine that granting possession creates economic havoc as to the PRICE of the dollar and the coining of gold based on value of gold. Would the economy be able to function with a $1200 gold coin, or $1300 dollar gold coin for use in everyday commerce? What change would you accept at a grocery store when you pay with a $1200 coin and the total of the items purchased was $78? Would you accept 1,122 one dollar bills? That would just be the very small beginning of havoc.

Does the U.S. government coin any gold coins with a stated dollar amount that equals the value of gold? Would you spend a modern U.S. gold coin commemorative for the stated amount on the coin? Would you give me your $5 modern gold coin commemorative for 5 US. paper dollars or 20 U.S. modern quarters? I am on my way to trade right now.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

58 minutes ago, Conder101 said:

It probably would be, but the President didn't do that, the Congress did and they DO have the power to regulate the value of money.  (Gold reserve act of Jan 30, 1934.  Passed by the House on the 20th, the Senate on the 27th and signed by the President on the 30th.)

I fail to see how it would be regulating the value of money, and you are correct; as I mentioned earlier the President did not do that.

[BillJones]

FDR issued the Gold Surrender Order before Congress passed the legislation that allowed him to do that. I would say that his action was unconstitutional, but Congress passed the enabling legislation so quickly that it didn’t matter.

 

Like I said before, FDR got everything he wanted from Congress, especially during the notorious “first 100 days” which has become a standard of sorts for new administrations.  

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

41 minutes ago, BillJones said:

FDR issued the Gold Surrender Order before Congress passed the legislation that allowed him to do that. I would say that his action was unconstitutional, but Congress passed the enabling legislation so quickly that it didn’t matter.

 

Like I said before, FDR got everything he wanted from Congress, especially during the notorious “first 100 days” which has become a standard of sorts for new administrations.  

But how was it an unconstitutional act of a President? What, specifically, is the argument that supports this opinion? I assume it is an interpretation of the wording of the Constitution. What, specifically, is the wording that causes the opinion of illegality? Is it the words "...regulating the value..."? That requires an explanation of the wording "...value of money...." as used in the Constitution.

Does it mean the price of Gold? Does it mean the price of U.S. issued dollars?

What supports the opinion that the approval of Congress was needed for the action of the President?

[BillJones]

1 hour ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

But how was it an unconstitutional act of a President? What, specifically, is the argument that supports this opinion? I assume it is an interpretation of the wording of the Constitution. What, specifically, is the wording that causes the opinion of illegality? Is it the words "...regulating the value..."? That requires an explanation of the wording "...value of money...." as used in the Constitution.

Does it mean the price of Gold? Does it mean the price of U.S. issued dollars?

What supports the opinion that the approval of Congress was needed for the action of the President?

It was unconstitutional because the United States Government had agreed to back its paper currency with gold since the end of the Grant Administration 1876. That return to the gold standard, long after the gold standard went down during the Civil War, put U.S. paper money on a par with gold. That put an end to the double standard where by paper dollars were traded at a discount with respect to gold and gave U.S. currency a firm commercial value. With a stroke a pen FDR ended the gold backing for the U.S. dollar for U.S. citizens only. Foreign nationals were still allowed to cash in dollars for gold all be at an inflated rate.

If it had not been for The Great Depression, and the huge political mandate that FDR had, I'll bet you that there would have been major court case over the issue. Presidents do not have the direct power to unilaterally devalue the nation's currency without the support of Congress, or over the longer term, through the policies of the Federal Reserve System which has heavy influence over the money supply.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

34 minutes ago, BillJones said:

It was unconstitutional because the United States Government had agreed to back its paper currency with gold since the end of the Grant Administration 1876. That return to the gold standard, long after the gold standard went down during the Civil War, put U.S. paper money on a par with gold. That put an end to the double standard where by paper dollars were traded at a discount with respect to gold and gave U.S. currency a firm commercial value. With a stroke a pen FDR ended the gold backing for the U.S. dollar for U.S. citizens only. Foreign nationals were still allowed to cash in dollars for gold all be at an inflated rate.

If it had not been for The Great Depression, and the huge political mandate that FDR had, I'll bet you that there would have been major court case over the issue. Presidents do not have the direct power to unilaterally devalue the nation's currency without the support of Congress, or over the longer term, through the policies of the Federal Reserve System which has heavy influence over the money supply.

I don't think an agreement to back paper currency makes the action of the President illegal

The was changed in 1834, 1837, 1972 and 1973. You are referring to market pricing of the gold during the civil war, and what you describe as an agreement to back paper with gold was convenience, and not regulating the value of money. What you describe was not a return to any gold standard, but establishing a price for paper money, via a paper gold certificate. There was no law that it had to be accepted, and no law it had to be used. It was, in fact, speculation and did nothing to stop the very act you describe, the double standard.

The act by the President did not end the gold backing of the dollar. It did establish the price of a dollar. We move forward to the action of reversal by President Nixon, and everyone says.

So, what is the paper dollar price today, this moment, in the commercial world? What is the buying power compared to other countries? What is the value of gold today? Is it equality, or speculation, with either commodity? Is the value of the dollar, as opposed to the price of the dollar, fixed?

[BillJones]

Quote

The act by the President did not end the gold backing of the dollar.

It ended it for American citizens. American citizens could not redeem U.S. dollars for gold, and could not hold gold. FDR even made it illegal to hold gold certificates. You could not collect them legally for many years.

[RWB]

It might be helpful for members to do some tough, objective research relating to the various gold-related Executive Orders, earlier laws and implementation.

[Conder101]

On 9/19/2017 at 8:53 AM, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

. Would the economy be able to function with a $1200 gold coin, or $1300 dollar gold coin for use in everyday commerce?

Sure, because there would almost certainly be fractional gold coins as well just as there used to be.  Most likely that $1200 coin would almost never be used except got very large purchases (new care with cash maybe) just as the double eagle was probably rarely used in day to day transactions.  In theory you could walk in an pay today with a $1000 or $10,000 bill.  They don't print them anymore but they are still legal tender.  The economy seems to be handling that just fine.

On 9/19/2017 at 11:12 AM, BillJones said:

FDR issued the Gold Surrender Order before Congress passed the legislation that allowed him to do that. I would say that his action was unconstitutional, but Congress passed the enabling legislation so quickly that it didn’t matter.

The gold surrender order was almost a year before the act that allowed the revaluation of gold,

 

On 9/19/2017 at 1:16 PM, BillJones said:

It was unconstitutional because the United States Government had agreed to back its paper currency with gold since the end of the Grant Administration 1876. That return to the gold standard, long after the gold standard went down during the Civil War, put U.S. paper money on a par with gold. That put an end to the double standard where by paper dollars were traded at a discount with respect to gold and gave U.S. currency a firm commercial value.

and as I pointed out that legislation was passed by Congress and signed by the president before it was announced so it was perfectly constitutional.  The gold surrender act was based on legislated power passed by congress in 1918 so it was probably constitutional as well.

On 9/19/2017 at 1:16 PM, BillJones said:

It was unconstitutional because the United States Government had agreed to back its paper currency with gold since the end of the Grant Administration 1876. That return to the gold standard, long after the gold standard went down during the Civil War, put U.S. paper money on a par with gold. That put an end to the double standard where by paper dollars were traded at a discount with respect to gold and gave U.S. currency a firm commercial value. With a stroke a pen FDR ended the gold backing for the U.S. dollar for U.S. citizens only

We didn't officially adopt the gold standard until 1901, even though we had been unofficially on it since 1853.  I'm not familiar off the top of my head of any legislation mandating the paper money be on par with gold during the Grant administration, My understanding is more that it was a normal adjusting of the markets to conditions, a reduction in the printing of unbacked paper and continued convertibility of paper into gold and silver resulted in trust in the paper and the rising of it's value til it was on par.  If putting the country on the gold standard was constitutional (it wasn't mentioned there) I can't see how taking it off the gold standard could be unconstitutional. 

[physics-fan3.14]

Since we've gotten a little sidetracked anyways, did any of you guys see Roger's recent article in The Numismatist about the gold seized during this time? Some of the banks went through and were picking out the better dates to save from the melting pot. I thought it was a very interesting article, and you should check it out. 

[RWB]

On 9/22/2017 at 10:48 AM, physics-fan3.14 said:

Since we've gotten a little sidetracked anyways, did any of you guys see Roger's recent article in The Numismatist about the gold seized during this time? Some of the banks went through and were picking out the better dates to save from the melting pot. I thought it was a very interesting article, and you should check it out. 

Thanks! I get paid by the words people read....

[RWB]

RE: " FDR issued the Gold Surrender Order before Congress passed the legislation that allowed him to do that. I would say that his action was unconstitutional, but Congress passed the enabling legislation so quickly that it didn’t matter."

False in all respects.

On April 5, 1933 FDR signed EO  6102 "...forbidding the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates within the continental United States". This was issued under authority of Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended by Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, entitled "An Act to provide relief in the existing national emergency in banking, and for other purposes,"

[BillJones]

Yes, that act was passed in 1917 in light of World War I, not The Great Depression. Yes, the law was still on the books, but it had been passed for a different purpose. What FDR did was legal, but he was able to use that statute out of context.

The law was passed when the Federal Government was going out control under Woodrow Wilson and his attorney general, a particularly nasty individual named Palmer. I am no fan of Eugene Debs, but he was unlawfully imprisoned because of his opposition to World War I under that law. His First Amendment rights were violated. Debs’ sentence was commuted by Warren G. Harding after Wilson left office.

Fortunately, when our country’s leadership runs amuck, our democracy has been able to reassert itself. Let’s hope that historical trend continues.