Last week, OReilly Factor producer Jesse Watters confronted Congressman Ron Paul at New England College to ask him why he was not interested in appearing on Bill OReillys show. by Kenn Jacobine
(libertarian)
Monday, September 12, 2011
One thing led to another and eventually Watters asked Dr. Paul about his position on the Gold Standard. Dr. Paul responded that he wanted the country to return to the constitutional mandate that money should be either gold or silver. At the end of their discussion, Watters asked Dr. Paul why he couldn’t have just come on the show and explained gold and silver to O’Reilly. Dr. Paul responded, “He wouldn’t have understood it”.
Dr. Paul couldn’t have been more accurate in his assessment of O’Reilly’s knowledge of the Constitution. On his show on September 7, Bill O’Reilly had a segment where he and Watters ridiculed Dr. Paul for his constitutional position on gold and silver. They stated their joint belief that the Constitution ”…doesn’t say anything about gold and silver”. Both men indicated that Dr. Paul was misinterpreting the Constitution. O”Reilly even asked Watters if Paul is a “loon”.
If O’Reilly or his producer would have just done a little research (I mean it’s fairly easy today given a little thing called the internet) they would have understood that Dr. Paul was spot on with his interpretation of the constitutional mandate that gold and silver be used for money. .
If O’Reilly and Watters had done their homework they would have known that Dr. Paul bases his position about gold and silver as money on Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1, of the Constitution:
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”
Now, on the surface it appears that Congressman Paul did misinterpret the Constitution given that Article 1 Section 10 specifically states that “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts… This clause clearly only relates to the states and what they are prohibited from doing. But, sometimes an issue is more than meets the eye.
As renowned constitutional lawyer, Edwin Vieira Jr. has written, during the colonial period of our history, the Spanish milled (silver) dollar was the predominant medium of exchange in the original Thirteen Colonies. This had to do with Spain’s important commercial and political power of that time. In July of 1785, Congress voted unanimously to make the dollar the monetary unit of the United States to emulate the Spanish milled (silver) dollar. On August 8, 1787, Congress resolved that the new American dollar would contain three hundred and seventy-five grains and sixty-four hundredths of a grain of fine silver. This measure of silver made the new American dollar equal in value to the Spanish dollar.
At the same time in Philadelphia, the Constitution was being written by many of the same people who adopted the silver dollar standard for the country in the Continental Congress. Thus, these men as well as their Constitutional Convention colleagues were well aware that the silver dollar had become and was the official monetary unit of the United States. As a matter of fact, the term “dollar” is referred to twice in the Constitution – Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 and in the Seventh Amendment.
I suppose what confused O’Reilly and Watters was that under Congress’ powers in Article 1 Section 8 the terms dollar, gold and silver are not mentioned. The only requirements for money in that section are that Congress has the power “…to coin money and regulate the value thereof…” And a month before the Constitutional Convention adjourned Congress did just that by making the silver dollar with three hundred and seventy-five grains and sixty-four hundredths of a grain of fine silver the monetary unit of the country.
Thus Ron Paul is correct when he says the Constitution calls for gold and silver money. It was implied in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5 because that is what existed at the time of the writing of the Constitution. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 was a reaffirmation of that fact and a prohibition for states to use anything but gold and silver in payment of debts. After all, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Why would the states be prohibited from using non-gold and non-silver coins when the federal government isn’t? That would make no sense.
If Bill O’Reilly or Jesse Watters had done about a half hour of research on the internet they would have known what the Constitution said and the historical context of the issue. They would have known that the Constitution does call for money backed by gold and silver. Does O’Reilly’s egregious mistake give me the right to question if he is a loon? No, perhaps the more appropriate question is, is he an intellectual sloth?
Kenn Jacobine teaches internationally and maintains a summer residence in North Carolina
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 11
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Kenn Jacobine only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Kenn Jacobine is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Bill Gee
Date: September 12, 2011 01:57:00 PM
Is Bill O'Reilly a loon? Unlikely.
What's more likely is that O'Reilly, like so many media pundits who have accepted the fiat currency myth without question, is simply joining the chorus of those who feel genuinely threatened by what a switch to real money would do to the power of the ultra-rich in this country. We listen to the ultra rich because... well, they're rich - and since we want to be just like them, we'll listen to whatever they say. So if the rich and powerful say that Dr. Paul is a loon, the media pundits will repeat that claim until it becomes the truth. If O'Reilly had done his homework and agreed with Dr. Paul, how fast do you think all of the other pundits out there would go on the attack by calling O'Reilly a loon?
My conclusion, if you really believe what Dr. Paul is saying, you have to stop listening to the news.
Posted By: Bentree
Date: September 12, 2011 03:37:49 PM
Oh! you can watch the news, like the Ray's center fielder, every once and a while they run into one, Even though his BA sucks it is still better than that of the smug Mr. O'reilly.
Posted By: gede
Date: September 13, 2011 09:54:12 AM
the power to "regulate" is exactly the power that the feds and banks are using.
there is nothing in the constitution that limits the power of the treasury to print money.
constitutions are drawn up by elites to achieve elitist purposes. people don't sign constitutions or even vote on them, elites do. the constitution is an elitist doctrine, similar to the magna carta. it grants power to those the signers wished power to be granted to.
