mastereldritch
New Member
- Jurisdiction
- Virginia
Ok...first, I'm not a lawyer or have any legal training so this might seem like a silly question to some but logically, it makes sense.
Given that the US dollar is not backed by "real" property any more and is given as "just compensation" in accordance with the takings clause of the constitution, is the "dollar" now considered to be "real" property? This is important because previously, the dollar was backed by either gold or silver and the gold/silver in questions constituted the "real" property that dollar represented. You could at any time trade the dollar for an amount of gold/silver as established by the government and held in trust for the people. But now, the dollar is backed by essentially nothing (full faith and credit with 20 trillion of debt is essentially worthless). So if the dollar is now "real" property given that it is no longer backed by a physical asset held in trust by the government, would it not also be subject to the takings clause of the constitution? The supreme court recently held that the takings clause did apply to temporary/"mobile" property with regard to a landmark ruling involving raisin farmers in CA. If we follow that line of thought, then any such marketable property regardless of type can therefore be subject to the takings clause (ie- cars/jewelry/etc.). So if that is the case, then the dollar bill I hold in my hand (having no "real" property backing it) would also be subject to the takings clause as well? Does that not establish a constitutional crisis given that congress is expressly given the authority to levy taxes? and yet also they cannot simply "take" property (which the dollar has become given recent supreme court rulings and the removal of the "gold" standard) without providing "just compensation" to every citizen that pays taxes?
Given that the US dollar is not backed by "real" property any more and is given as "just compensation" in accordance with the takings clause of the constitution, is the "dollar" now considered to be "real" property? This is important because previously, the dollar was backed by either gold or silver and the gold/silver in questions constituted the "real" property that dollar represented. You could at any time trade the dollar for an amount of gold/silver as established by the government and held in trust for the people. But now, the dollar is backed by essentially nothing (full faith and credit with 20 trillion of debt is essentially worthless). So if the dollar is now "real" property given that it is no longer backed by a physical asset held in trust by the government, would it not also be subject to the takings clause of the constitution? The supreme court recently held that the takings clause did apply to temporary/"mobile" property with regard to a landmark ruling involving raisin farmers in CA. If we follow that line of thought, then any such marketable property regardless of type can therefore be subject to the takings clause (ie- cars/jewelry/etc.). So if that is the case, then the dollar bill I hold in my hand (having no "real" property backing it) would also be subject to the takings clause as well? Does that not establish a constitutional crisis given that congress is expressly given the authority to levy taxes? and yet also they cannot simply "take" property (which the dollar has become given recent supreme court rulings and the removal of the "gold" standard) without providing "just compensation" to every citizen that pays taxes?
