With regard to the concepts of „borrowing money“, I would like to ask whether the court has the power to interpret them in the Constitution differently from that which they receive when they are used in other instruments, such as the statutes of municipal or private bodies or in the contracts of individuals? They are not ambiguous; They have a fixed meaning in other instruments. If the court can change that in the constitution, it can change the meaning of all the other clauses; And the powers that the government can exercise will not be explained by clear words in the organic law, but by words of new meaning that rest in the minds of judges. Until an authority is created that goes beyond the so-called claim and practice of the sovereign governments of Europe, I must believe that the terms have the same meaning in all instruments, wherever they are used; they imply the power to contract monetary credit only on the basis of considerations to be agreed between the parties. The terms of the loan or whether the creditor should receive a special guarantee are an agreement between the parties; They don`t affect anyone else. They do not mean that the borrower can give his promise to repay the money a guarantee to the lender outside the property or rights he owns. The transaction is completed when the lender partes with their money and the borrower makes their promise to pay when and in the manner and with the agreed guarantee. Whatever steps are taken to increase the value of the promise or ensure its fulfillment, they must necessarily be limited to the property, rights and privileges possessed by the borrower. Whether he can add to his promises an element that will cause others [110 U.S. 421, 460] to obtain them beyond the guarantee he gives for their payment depends on his power to control that element.
If he has the right to restrict the use of the property of others or to wrest an advantage from them, he may grant that privilege to the lender; But if he has no right to interfere in this way with the property or possession of others, of course, he cannot give one. It will hardly be argued that the United States Government has the power to undertake that the lender, as security for its bank notes, will have special privileges with respect to the visible property of others, may occupy part of its land or houses and thus interfere with the possession and use of its property. If the government cannot do that, how can it intervene and say, as a condition of the loan, that the lender has the right to interfere in contracts between private parties? Much of the world`s property exists in contracts, and the government has no more right to deprive someone of his worth by a law acting directly upon him than it has the right to deprive someone of the value of all visible and material goods. No one, I think, will argue that individuals or corporations have the power to give their proof of debt property by which the holder will be able to influence the contracts of other parties who are outside the loan; nor would anyone claim that Congress has the power to confer such a status on the notes of the United States, except for the clause authorizing it to enact such laws as are necessary and appropriate for the exercise of its powers. However, this clause does not extend the expressly designated powers; It simply says what Congress could have done without its inclusion in the Constitution. Without them, Congress could have taken all appropriate means of borrowing; However, this may only be appropriate for an objective somewhat related to fit for purpose, which takes into account the essential terms of the contract or the guarantees that the borrower can provide for the repayment of the loan. The quality of the legal tender does not affect the terms of the contract; It is completely without them; nor is it collateral for the loan, because [110 U.S. 421, 461] a security right is a pledged thing over which the borrower has some control or interest in which the borrower has an interest. Throughout the United Kingdom, the 1 pound, 2 pound and 5 pound sterling coins are legal tender in unlimited quantities. Twentypence coins and fifty pence coins are legal tender in quantities not exceeding 10 pounds; Fivepence notes and tenpence notes are legal tender up to £5; and the cent and twopence coins are legal tender up to 20 pence. [38] Under the Currency Act 1971,[39] gold sovereigns are also legal tender for any amount.
Although not specifically mentioned on them, the face values of gold coins are 50p; £1; £2; and £5, a fraction of their value in gold bars. The five-pound coins, although legal tender, are intended to serve as souvenirs and are almost never seen in circulation. Banknotes and coins can no longer be legal tender if they are replaced by new banknotes of the same currency or if a new currency is introduced to replace the previous currency. [6] Here are some examples: Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 limits the number of coins that can be offered for payment to fifty. [24] The governments issuing the coins must establish the euro as the sole legal tender. Due to the different legal meanings of the term `legal tender` in different Member States and the possibility for contract law to prevail over legal tender, it is possible for traders to refuse to accept euro banknotes and coins in certain euro area countries (the Netherlands, Germany, Finland and Ireland). [25] National legislation may also impose restrictions on the maximum amounts that can be paid per coin or banknote. This note is legal tender (literal translation, money in payment of the debt) according to the law.
The constitutional authority of Congress to provide a single currency for the entire country is now firmly established. In Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 wall. 533, 548, Chief Justice CHASE stated in the Court`s opinion: „There is no doubt that under the Constitution, the power to provide coin circulation [110 US 421, 446] is transferred to Congress. And it is regulated by the uniform practice of the administration and by repeated rulings that Congress can constitutionally authorize the issuance of credit bills. Congress, which has pledged to provide a national currency consisting of coins, U.S. Treasury bills, and national bank notes, is authorized to impose a 10 percent tax on all state banks or national bankers that pay for private or state-bank banknotes. on the amount of such obligations so paid.
Veazie Bank v Fenno, loc. cit.; Bank v. U.S. 101 U.S. 1. The reason for this conclusion was given by Chief Justice CHASE and repeated by the current Chief Justice with the following words: „Thus, having undertaken in the exercise of unchallenged constitutional powers to furnish currency to the whole country, it cannot be questioned that Congress can constitutionally secure the benefit of the people by appropriate laws.
