Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

South Carolina Lawmaker Seeks to Ban Federal Currency



February 18, 2010 – Comments (7)

MY COMMENT: This is the TOP VIEWED story on CBS. The Top Blog post is the Onion story with Ben Bernacke burning the dollar. They are both two of the TOP stories on Reguardless of your CURRENT opinion, you better start paying attention and making a plan. 

South Carolina Rep. Mike Pitts has introduced legislation that would mandate that gold and silver coins replace federal currency as legal tender in his state.

As the Palmetto Scoop first reported, Pitts, a Republican, introduced legislation this month banning "the unconstitutional substitution of Federal Reserve Notes for silver and gold coin" in South Carolina.

In an interview, Pitts told Hotsheet that he believes that "if the federal government continues to spend money at the rate it's spending money, and if it continues to print money at the rate it's printing money, our economic system is going to collapse."

"The Germans felt their system wouldn't collapse, but it took a wheelbarrow of money to buy a loaf of bread in the 1930s," he said. "The Soviet Union didn't think their system would collapse, but it did. Ours is capable of collapsing also."

The lawmaker believes that a shift to an economy based on gold and silver coins would give the state a "base of currency" should that collapse come. As one expert told the Scoop, however, his bill would likely be ruled unconstitutional because it "violates a perfectly legal and Constitutional federal law, enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, that federal reserve notes are legal tender for all debts public and private."

In addition, since gold and silver regularly fluctuate in value, they could not easily function as stable currency.

But Pitts maintains that his state is better off with something he can hold in his hand and barter with as opposed to federal currency, which he described to the Scoop as "paper with ink on it." He says he resents what he considers the federal government's intrusions on states' rights.

Though he did not offer a timeframe, Pitts told Hotsheet that he anticipates a nationwide economic collapse "if our federal government continues the course it's been traveling under the previous administration and this administration."


7 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On February 18, 2010 at 6:37 PM, abitare (30.02) wrote:

Report this comment
#2) On February 18, 2010 at 8:03 PM, ChrisGraley (28.63) wrote:

Terrific video and terrific post.


Report this comment
#3) On February 19, 2010 at 11:59 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.92) wrote:

He's not very accurate on his history.  German hyperinflation happened in 1923 --- not the 1930's.  The article is also correct in that this would be a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution.

All the same, I can somewhat sympathesize.  I've said for a while that our Federal system needs to be dramatically reformed to function again.  One problem is that most "states" simply don't function well as legal entities.  Over time, we've continually made states larger and larger so that they you don't get localized democracy any more.

My other qualm is that the Federal government has taken over too much authority and we need to decentralize power again.  We were too decentralized in the 1780's under the Articles of Confederation.  We are too centralized now.

If we divided the nation into "Metro States" that were similar to city-states of yore (except, they'd encompass entire metro areas and surrounding counties), I think our nation would function a lot better.  Large states don't make very good democratic republics. I'd say South Carolina and New Hampshire are closer to being ideal than California and Texas.

Also, the more power taken away from Congress --- the better. 

Report this comment
#4) On February 19, 2010 at 3:33 PM, USNHR (29.62) wrote:

you better start paying attention

Congress? Are you listening? Obama, are your ears sticking out? Can you hear?

Also, the more power taken away from Congress --- the better. 

Don't say that unless you know where or have a plan where that power should go.

I think lobbyist's should be banned, that each bill should only contain only one subject in it and can't exceed 25 pages, that any spending that will be done for an individual state needs to be a seperate bill... congress can keep their power if those and some other changes are implemented. I definately don't want to see the president with more power, however, I certainly wouldn't mind if congress gave up some of their power back to the states.

Report this comment
#5) On February 19, 2010 at 6:12 PM, FleaBagger (27.40) wrote:

Actually, the Constitution prohibits the use of anything other than gold or silver for a state to pay off its debt to another state, so he may be right about Fed reserve notes being unconstitutional.

Of course, that has no bearing on what the U.S. Supreme and other courts will rule.

Report this comment
#6) On February 19, 2010 at 6:30 PM, djkumquat (36.65) wrote:

usnhr - you ask if obama is listening, and you state that you think lobbyists should be banned. obama has done this. it was a weak soup, partisan style ban, but more than anyone else has done.

Report this comment
#7) On February 19, 2010 at 10:05 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

The CFR has got to go.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners