Image by epSos.de via Flickr
Congressman Paul asks a witness (perhaps from the Treasury Department) to define what, exactly, is a dollar. It’s funny to see the witness hem, haw and squirm for a few seconds and finally BS his way out of actually defining the “dollar”. Curiously, Congressman Paul lets him off the hook. Nevertheless, it appears that government has no current definition for “dollars”.
But definitions are the “law” of the Law. You cannot know what a “law” means unless you know the definitions of the words used to express that law. How can anyone know the the meaning of a law that employs a word that is not defined?
The government’s inability to define the word “dollar,” raises an interesting possibility. Suppose the IRS asked you to pay a certain number of “dollars” in tax liabilities and you asked the IRS for a legal definition of the “dollar”.
This isn’t a frivolous question. There are a number of number of national currencies that are called “dollars”. For example, I believe that Zimbabwe uses a “dollar” as its national currency. Given that there are several different kinds of “dollars,” which one does the IRS refer to?
Presumably our tax bills are denominated in “US dollars,” but what is the legal definition of that term? If the IRS were trying to collect for 100,000 undefined “dollars” what would that mean? How would that differ from trying to collect for 100,000 undefined “qlerks”? Aren’t I entitled to know the “nature and cause” of accusations against me? How can I know the “nature and cause” if the key word in the accusation is undefined? Don’t I have a right to sufficient notice of the allegations against me? If someone claims I owe them some “dollars” aren’t I entitled to know what “dollars” means?
Again, definitions are the law of the law. To paraphrase President Clinton’s famous observation, “It all depend on what the meaning [definition] of ‘dollars’ is.”
So, what is the legal definition of the current “dollar”? Is there a definition in the United States Code? What are the legal implications if the word “dollar” is not defined?
Congressman Paul claims the the only definition for the “dollar” that he’s found in the United States Code is “371 grains of silver”. 371 grains = about 0.85 ounce.
The current bullion price for silver is about 40 undefined “US dollars” per ounce. Given that a real, legally-defined “dollar” is about 0.85 ounce of silver, then a real defined dollar (0.85 ounce of silver) is currently worth about 0.85 x $40 (undefined) = 34 undefined “dollars”.
This suggests that your income for last year (100,000 in undefined dollars) might also be described as 2,941 legally-defined dollars (100,000 undefined dollars/34 undefined dollars/defined dollar).
Given that we have a “graduated” income tax, the tax due on 100,000 undefined dollars may be a much higher percentage than the tax due on 2,941 legally-defined dollars. In fact, it’s possible that while a 20% tax rate might apply to 100,000 undefined dollars, the tax rate on 2,941 legally-defined dollars might be 5% or even 0%.
Would you rather pay 20% on 100,000 undefined dollars or 5% on 2,941 defined dollars?
Yes, if you calculated your taxes in defined dollars (371 grains of silver), you might have to pay in defined dollars (silver). But 5% of 2,941 defined dollars is about 147 defined dollars. Given that a defined dollar is 0.85 ounce of silver, 147 defined dollars = 125 ounces of silver. The current bullion price of silver (as denominated in undefined dollars) is 40 undefined dollars per ounce. Thus, 125 ounces of silver is currently priced at 5,000 undefined “dollars”.
Thus, the tax calculated in defined dollars might be just 25% of the tax calculated in undefined dollars. And if the graduated income tax required no payment whatsoever on an anual gross of 2,941 (defined) dollars, the real tax rate on those defined dollars might be zero.
I would agree that all of these calculations are fanciful and absurd–if the term “dollar” had a legal definition. But, because the modern “dollar” is not defined, these calculations may seem confusing and hard to believe, but they are are not irrational. They are simply reactions to the irrationality of government’s failure to define the dollar.
Congressman Paul’s inquiry into the definition of “dollars” goes to the heart of our entire governmental and economic system. If enough people began to demand a definition for dollars, the whole house of FRNs might collapse.
Think about that. Raising an issue about the “mere” definition of a single word might be enough to topple the whole system. No guns, no bombs, no violence. Simply make ‘em define the dollar and the whole damned system might collapse.
It’s all about words, ladies and gentlemen. It’s all about words. Insofar as you can master the language, you can master the system.
The first step on the road back to Liberty is to purchase a series of dictionaries and to begin to master the meanings of words.
video 00:02:40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yfT5sSqamM
Donald B.
August 1, 2011 at 1:16 AM
What a GREAT answer!!! It’s hilarious however when a Supreme Court of N.M.clerk in essence says that she cannot accept frns for the filing fee, she has to have “dollars. So some people in gov-co doesn’t know what a federal reserve note is either.
pete
August 1, 2011 at 10:31 AM
THIS IS NOT RELATED TO THE ESSAY. IM COMMENTING ON YOUR AIRING ON COAST TO COAST AM. I FIRMLY BELIEVE YOU WERE CAUSING MUCH DISCOMFORT FOR THE HOST GEORGE NORRY . HE SEEMED TO INTERUPT YOU AND NOT ALLOW YOU TO FINISH YOUR POINT ON MANY OCCASIONS.I GOT MANY OF YOUR POINTS, I HAVE BEEN READING YOUR BLOG FOR A LONG TIME.I SEEK TO UNDERSTANDYOU AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE . I OFTEN REGARD YOU AS MY ROLE MODEL AND DONT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT SHARING YOU WITH ANYONE . IT SEEMS IN THE ARENA OF DEEP TRUTH NOT VERY MANY PEOPLE SEEM TO DESIRE IT .THANK-YOU AL FOR EVERYTHING
derick
August 1, 2011 at 1:03 PM
pete,
I agree, Al was great. I have only listened to about half of it so far. George seemed to talk over Al more than he should have and he couldnt seem to understand Al’s comments on the second amendment. Al explained his comments very well but I think George had his mind made up before the interview even started. I hope to have time to listen to the rest soon.
derick
August 1, 2011 at 1:19 PM
Our so called government, the federal reserve or the IRS have NOTHING what so ever to do with “money.” Part of the great illusion is that the federal reserve was allowed to print “Dollar” on the federal reserve note. When you define “note” you will understand what the FRN really is.
whatmeblog54321
August 1, 2011 at 9:15 PM
Thank you everyone. Our duties ahead center around how to teach others, and then try to address the tough “why did it take so long”, or why so many generations flew by to jolt us back to ‘true definitions’, and true law flowing from them, bringing them all forward aright.
Dr. Paul, videotaped above, vividly alludes to the definition of a ‘Yard’, meaning the common knowledge of 3 Feet or 36 Inches equaling to ‘one Yard’. This is greatly poignant from him, and his bringing up the Coinage Act of 1792, wherein also the United States Mint was to be at the seat of government, and oh yea, defining other definitions, such as a thing known as “dollar”.
Constitutional scholar par excellence Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., as you know Al, explains it this way:
The 1787 Constitution contains such wording as, “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second YEAR by the People of the several States…”, and a President “…shall hold his Office during the Term of four YEARS…”, and everybody in the late 1700s knew what a YEAR was. But what if, at some point later in time, some group of people decided, “No, a YEAR is now 47,652 days– not 365 and 1/4 days– and this of course, as of this ‘new modern age’, is deemed the ‘original intent’ of what they meant, back there in 1787 and 1792 when they didn’t know any better.
Dr. Vieira is right. How can a whole country be lead into twisting and distorting words of common usage? This blogger perceives THIS to be nastier than exploding and throwing out an entire civilization– and all of its tried-and-true ‘law common’– out into chaotic orbit.
Isaac Newton of all scientists knew better than to mess around with orbits.
mAximo
August 1, 2011 at 9:16 PM
Al: George Gordon has been filing his tax returns based on the historical dollar as described, but
he violates GAAP transparency by mixing different kinds of coins: the silver Eagle $ (XAG) has about 30% more silver in it than the historical $ (XUSD) for example. But the IRS is unlikely to try to tackle him on such a technicality after he defeated them in court on another accounting matter.
Pete & Derrick: there’s a ‘Radio Page’ for a reason.
Dominick Mastroserio not (DOMINICK MASTROSERIO)
August 2, 2011 at 9:42 PM
Many people insistently and persistently demanding an official definition of “dollar” would, I’m sure, engender an abrupt and unexpected police state-style reaction from officialdom.
Yet another reason to try getting everybody to do it.
If enough people are thus made plainly aware of their real, captive, undemocratic status they’d have to do something about the stark incontrovertability of such tyranny without having to pretend they weren’t either men willing to die to recapture their lost liberty or abject cowards volunteering to have their necks and feet fitted for conscious servility to it.
They would, in short, have their positions as mere subjects defined for them unequivocally, without possibility of obfuscation and confusion and without extenuating excusability.
Brian
August 4, 2011 at 3:46 PM
Al, there are plenty of definitions of the “dollar” in the code. Only problem is nothing is in harmony. It makes zero sense and does nothing to quell the problem of the constitution. Which uses the term “dollar” in it. Terms used within the constitution cannot be arbitrarily redefined by CONgress without an amendment.
The sad excuse definition for a “dollar” is here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/usc_sec_31_00005112—-000-.html
So what is it? Gold…Silver…Copper…nickle…zinc…dogshit? I believe the coinage act of 1792 is what the constitution means a dollar to be. 416 grains of standard silver. Everything else is an abomination. Proverbs 11:1 explains this perfectly.
derick
August 6, 2011 at 11:00 AM
“416 grains of standard silver” WTF Brian?
A constitutional dollar is 371.25 grians of pure silver.
http://mises.org/daily/4149
derick
August 6, 2011 at 9:57 PM
416 grains of standard silver OR 371.25 grains of pure silver is what defines a Constitutional dollar.
Warren Hathaway
October 17, 2011 at 12:48 AM
Yes, a dollar under the Constitution of the United States is a Spanish Milled dollar coin, or its equivalent, in coin form, containing 371.25 grains of fine silver. The dollar was established by the Continental Congress before the adoption of the Constitution. The United States Congress established a mint to coin the dollar. This was done because Spain had depreciated its dollar coin five percent. See Hamilton’s Report on the establishing of a mint (January 28, 1791). Refer to the work, “What is the Dollar in the United States” (online), its author, Dan Goodman.
And since debts are generally denominated in terms of dollars, then only silver coin (and maybe gold coin) can be tender in payment of the debt.
On the issue of legal tender:
The United States cannot make its obligations a legal tender in payment of private debts. In the case of Julliard v. Greenman, the United States Supreme Court held that: 1) Congress had the power to make its obligations a legal tender in the payment of private debts, and 2) that this power was an implied power under the Constitution based on the case of McCulloch v. State of Maryland. The Court determined that this implied power of making the obligations of the United States a legal tender in payment of private debts was a means (incident) to the power (expressly) given to Congress to borrow money on the credit of the United States.
However, the case of McCulloch v. State of Maryland was wrongly decided. The concept of implied powers does not exist in the Constitution. In fact, such a concept, if a doctrine would be in conflict with the doctrine that the Congress is a government of enumerated powers. As such, Congress does not have the power to make its obligations a legal tender in payment of debts, since the concept of implied powers does not exist in the Constitution. Since the power is not granted (expressly) to Congress, the power to make its obligations a legal tender in payment of private debts is not given to Congress under the Constitution of the United States. This is shown in the work, “The United States government does not have the power to make its obligations a legal tender” (online) by Dan Goodman.
bungeebones
May 6, 2012 at 6:48 PM
Your points are excellent and accurate, I believe, and we can also look to simple English grammar for even more evidence to back it up. I’ve come to believe that if I report to the IRS how many FRNs (Federal Reserve Notes) I have earned instead of how many dollars (as they asked for) I have misrepresented my income. Even though I have done so to my own detriment because it may take $35+ FRNs to acquire a US minted Dollar on the open market the IRS will gladly accept your over-statement of income.
An employer pays me with a check and I take it to a bank. They ‘cash’ it and give me Federal Reserve notes. They don’t give me dollars but merely notes that were originally promises to pay dollars. There is no place I can redeem them for dollars so, really, I never received dollars from either my employer nor the bank but yet, they will report they gave me dollars (they lie).
If I am brought before the IRS or court and they present documentation from someone saying they paid me x number of dollars we need to have those persons presented so they can be cross examined. That will end up with a confession that they never really paid us dollars but mere FRNs. There would therefore be no evidence we ever were paid dollars and no tax would be due.
But our tax law holds that if we get paid in something other than money we are required to due our own calculation and report its market value as income. If the IRS wanted to go that route then we all would have to then calculate the value of the FRNs we were paid and convert it to the market value in silver dollars (about 1/35th of the original amount as you report in your article.
As to the word “dollar” on the FRN, brushing up on your grammar and you will see that it is an adjective. The “thing” you were paid was a note (that is the noun). The word dollar merely describes the type of note you received. When they ask us to report how many “dollars” we made they want to know how many “things” we earned. They would look pretty silly trying to explain away that the word “dollar” on a FRN is an adjective and they wanted that amoun on their form.
Lastly, after reporting our income after calculating its value as real dollars we get to pay with FRNs because their own Full Faith and Credit clause requires they accept FRNs in lieu of real dollars at their denominated value.
bungeebones
May 6, 2012 at 7:24 PM
Price fixing was also at the root of causing of the demise of metal monies. They minted the dollar using the standard explained but how/where/when/what/why is it written that the copper in 100 pennies is equal to a dollar? Or that one ounce of gold is worth 35 or 50 silver dollars? Yet, they minted and embossed fixed values on coins made with other metals. That basically fixed their values no matter what the real value of the base metal in the open market.
If we were to return to the gold standard today I would like to see the other metal coins to just float in value in relation to the silver dollar. With computers and led screens they could simply post the exchange rate of copper, nickel, silver and gold coins at the check out (or at your bank).