Show thread history

Brunswick

1w ago

If the government sold bonds, and the bonds were circulated as money, they would be bills of credit. There is no real difference.

See translation

1
0
0
0
0


Do you have thoughts?

Log in to leave a comment


Replies

a source familiar with the matter

@a source familiar with the matter

1w ago

Bills of credit are used as a paper "money" and only work with legal tender laws (which the Congress has no authorization to pass)

The whole idea is the person is compelled to accept them as if they were money, unlike a bond in which in an investor voluntarily surrenders money in order to lend it to the government

The power to issue debt does not imply the power to coerce others into accepting your debt instruments

See translation

1

0
0
0
0

Brunswick

@Brunswick

1w ago

The Legal Debate

Support for your position:

The federal government is not granted the power to emit bills of credit.

That means under a strict enumerated powers view, it can’t do so.

Especially given the explicit denial of that power to states, the omission for Congress is meaningful.


Opposing view (judicial precedent):

The Legal Tender Cases (esp. Juilliard v. Greenman, 1884) upheld Congress’s power to issue paper money, even not directly tied to borrowing, as part of its implied powers over monetary policy and borrowing.

Courts interpreted "borrowing" as flexible enough to cover paper notes.

However, these decisions are from the post-Civil War era, when Greenbacks had already been issued.

See translation

0

0
0
0
0