HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, June 15, 2007
2007 Ron Paul 64:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Honest Money Act. The Honest
Money Act repeals legal tender laws that force
American citizens to accept fiat money in their
economic transactions.
2007 Ron Paul 64:2
Absent legal tender laws, individuals acting through the market will determine what is
money. Historically, when individuals have
been free to choose their money they have
selected items that are portable, widely accepted,
and have a stable value. Having the
market, rather than the government, define
money is integral to the functioning of a free
economy. As Edwin Vieira, perhaps the Nations
top expert on constitutional monetary
policy says, . . . a free market functions
most efficiently and most fairly when the market
determines the quality and the quantity of
money thats being used.
2007 Ron Paul 64:3
While fiat money produced by the State is portable and, thanks to legal tender laws,
widely accepted, it is certainly not of stable
value. In fact, our entire monetary policy is
predicated on the governments ability to manipulate
the value of the currency. Thus, absent
legal tender laws, many citizens would
refuse to accept government money for their
transactions.
2007 Ron Paul 64:4
Legal tender laws disadvantage ordinary citizens by forcing them to use inferior money,
which they would otherwise refuse. As Stephen
T. Byington put in the September 1895
issue of the American Federationist: No legal
tender law is ever needed to make men take
good money; its only use is to make them
take bad money. Kick it out!
2007 Ron Paul 64:5
It may seem surprising that the Mr. Byingtons well-phrased attack on legal tender
laws appeared in the publication of the American
Federation of Labor. However, enlightened
union leaders of that time recognized
that ways in which workers where harmed by
the erosion of the value of money which inevitably
follows when governments pass legal
tender laws.
2007 Ron Paul 64:6
Legal tender laws may disadvantage average citizens but they do help power-hungry
politicians use inflationary monetary policy to
expand the government beyond its proper limits.
However, the primary beneficiaries of legal
tender laws are the special interests who are
granted the privilege of producing and controlling
the paper money forced on the public via
legal tender laws. Legal tender laws thus represent
the primary means of reverse redistribution
where the wealth of the working class
is given, via laws forcing people to use debased
money, to well-heeled, politically powerful
bankers.
2007 Ron Paul 64:7
The drafters of the Constitution were well aware of how a government armed with legal
tender powers could ravage the peoples liberty
and prosperity. This is why the Constitution
does not grant legal tender powers to the
federal government. Instead, Congress was
given powers to establish standards regarding
the value of money. In other words, in monetary
matters the Congress was to follow the
lead of the market. When Alexander Hamilton
wrote the coinage act of 1792, he simply
adopted the market-definition of a dollar as
equaling the value of the Spanish milled silver
coin.
2007 Ron Paul 64:8
Legal tender laws have reversed that order to where the market follows the lead of Congress.
Beginning in the 19th century, Federal
politicians sought to enhance their power and
enrich their cronies, by using legal tender
powers to change the definition of a dollar
from a silver-or-gold-backed unit whose value
is determined by the market, to a piece of
paper produced by the State. The value of
this paper may be normally backed in part by
gold or silver, but its ultimate backing is the
power of the State, and its value is determined
by the political needs of the State and the
powerful special interests who influence monetary
policy.
2007 Ron Paul 64:9
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court failed to protect the American people from Congress
unconstitutional legal tender laws. Supreme
Court Justice, and Lincoln Treasury Secretary,
Salmon Chase, writing in dissent in the legal
tender cases, summed up the main reason
why the Founders did not grant Congress the
authority to pass legal tender laws: The legal
tender quality [of money] is only valuable for
the purposes of dishonesty. Justice Chase
might have added dishonesty is perpetrated
by State-favored interests on the average
American.
2007 Ron Paul 64:10
Another prescient Justice was Stephen Field, the only justice to dissent in every one
of the legal tender cases to come before the
Court. Justice Field accurately described the
dangers to the constitutional republic posed by
legal tender laws: The arguments in favor of
the constitutionality of legal tender paper currency
tend directly to break down the barriers
which separate a government of limited powers
from a government resting in the unrestrained
will of Congress. Those limitations
must be preserved, or our government will inevitably
drift from the system established by
our Fathers into a vast, centralized and consolidated
government.
2007 Ron Paul 64:11
Considering the growth of government since the Supreme Court joined Congress in disregarding
the constitutional barriers to legal
tender laws, can anyone doubt the accuracy
of Justice Fields words? Repeal of legal tender
laws would restore constitutional government
and protect the peoples right to use a
currency chosen by the market because it
serves the needs of the people, instead of
having to use a currency chosen by the State
because it serves the needs of power hungry
politicians and special interests. Therefore, I
urge my colleges to cosponsor the Honest
Money Act.