STANDARD OF VALUE AND HJR 192 [codified at 31 USC sec. 5118 d, 2]

One thing you must remember, the law always follows the money.
Before H.J.R. 192 on June 5, 1933, the money system had a Standard of value.  The raw substance for the money came from the land of the states and was coined by the Federal Government that guaranteed its weight and fineness according to the Bland Allison Act of 1792.  The Bland Allison Act was a physical charter that stated what the hard coin was to contain in value in gold and silver.  The Government had the power to coin the money under its general powers under the master charter of Article I to the Constitution of United States.  Everything in and of itself had a standard of value and the same goes today except for the money.  If you buy a quart of milk you get a quart of milk.  If you buy a pound of hamburger, you get a pound of hamburger.  The same with a gallon of gasoline etc.  But, what do you get when you go to the bank?  Nothing that contains any value in and of itself.
There is nothing in HJR192 that defines value or what is to take place regarding the suspension of the gold Standard, nor is there any place in the Constitution under Article I that gives the Federal Government under its general law making powers to enact HJR 192 and to create something that has no standard of value.
Now, we are going to carry this one step further.  Article I incorporates by reference, the Bland Allison Act under the general law making powers of the Federal Government.  In other words, the Bland Allison Act is a physical charter that defines what money is and guarantees the value in weight and fineness.
Whereas, HJR 192 contains no physical charter thus no incorporation by reference.  In other words, produce the evidence where Congress under its general law making powers of Article I has the power to create a medium of exchange that contains no value.  There is none, and the same goes for HJR 192.  There is no charter to define what the results of HJR 192 were to be other than to say it is against public policy to demand “payment” of debt.  The truth of the matter regarding HJR 192 is that, Congress was not acting under its general powers of Article I, but under its unincorporated powers under local law that emanates out of Article IV Section 3 cl. 2 in that, Congress and the courts presumes because of HJR 192 that you have contracted to come within the preview of Title 12 U.S.C. Chapt. 41 Sec. 1602 c, d, e, therefore, have a privilege as a member of an unincorporated banking association.  As the Court stated in The Propeller Genesee Chief:  “The law . . . contains no regulations of commerce. . . .  It merely confers a new jurisdiction on the district courts; and this is its only object and purpose. . . .  It is evident . . . that Congress, in passing [the law], did not intend to exercise their power to regulate commerce. . . .   The statutes do no more than grant jurisdiction over a particular class of cases.”  12 How. at 451-452 (emphasis in original).  Verlinden v. Bank of Nigeria. 461 U.S. 496 (1983). [Bold emphasis added}
Remember, Article IV Section 3 cl. 1 defines how new states are to be incorporated into the Union.  Under Article IV Section 3 cl. 2 there are no powers to incorporate anything.  The clause merely states: “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; . . .   .”  [underline added].  Remember what O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 US 516, 537 (1933) stated:

Literally, the word “territory”, as here used, signifies property, since the language is not “territory or property”, but “territory or other property.”  There thus arises an evident difference between the words “the territory” and “a territory” of the United States.  The former merely designates a particular part or parts of the earth's surface-the imperially extensive real estate holdings of the Nation; the latter is a governmental subdivision which happened to be called a “territory”, but which quite as well could have been called a “colony” … “province”   . . . . ‘A territory, under the Constitution and laws of United States is an inchoate state,” quoting Ex parte Morgan D.C. 20 Fed 298, 305. [emphasis added]

The.  An article which particularizes the subject spoken of.  “Grammatical niceties should not be resorted to without necessity; but it would be extending liberality to an unwarrantable length to confound the articles ‘a’ and ‘the’.  The most unlettered persons understand that ‘a’ is indefinite, but ‘the’ refers to a certain object.”  Black’s Law Dict. 5th Ed.  In other words, “a territory” is not incorporated by reference into the Union of states.  The Constitution does not directly deal with individuals, the amendments are for the use of individuals to be used against the state and federal Governments.  Once you join the association with a privilege, now Congress has control over the association and you as a member of a class that is to be regulated.

©
Lee Brobst
e-mail This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it