In economic terms, money isn't property. It's a denomination of past
labor and earnings paid to a business's capital until there is a purchase
of property. It's for convenience in economies in which the vast
majority of economic exchanges do not involve barter.

But this isn't a legal argument, till now.

The government fined a business $50,000 for a labor law violation. An administrative hearing was held, but the argument is that the
administrative law judge wasn't impartial as an employee of the
enforcement department of the agency.

The business demanded due process, a trial in actual federal district court.

The government presented these arguments that he has no right to due
process:

(1) the government creates money, so you can't own it (fiat currency);

(2) the government can tax your money, so you don't own it; and

(3) the Constitution allows the government to spend money for the
"general welfare."

I'd like to see a pickpocket or a fraudster make that argument at his
criminal trial.

The government's arguments cite the Legal Tender Cases (I am aware of
the outcome but not the arguments). Debtors could not demand specie or
hard currency to repay debts. They were required to accept fiat
currency.

Institute for Justice pointed to plenty of other Supreme Court opinions
in which money is property and therefore the due process clause applies.

https://reason.com/2025/01/31/the-government-says-money-isnt-property-so-it-can-take-yours/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-02-25 1:41 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

In economic terms, money isn't property. It's a denomination of past
labor and earnings paid to a business's capital until there is a purchase
of property. It's for convenience in economies in which the vast
majority of economic exchanges do not involve barter.

But this isn't a legal argument, till now.

The government fined a business $50,000 for a labor law violation. An administrative hearing was held, but the argument is that the
administrative law judge wasn't impartial as an employee of the
enforcement department of the agency.

The business demanded due process, a trial in actual federal district court.

The government presented these arguments that he has no right to due
process:

(1) the government creates money, so you can't own it (fiat currency);

(2) the government can tax your money, so you don't own it; and

(3) the Constitution allows the government to spend money for the
"general welfare."

I'd like to see a pickpocket or a fraudster make that argument at his criminal trial.

Bernie Madoff probably just called his lawyer asking if this could be
used as the basis of an appeal ;-)

The government's arguments cite the Legal Tender Cases (I am aware of
the outcome but not the arguments). Debtors could not demand specie or
hard currency to repay debts. They were required to accept fiat
currency.

Institute for Justice pointed to plenty of other Supreme Court opinions
in which money is property and therefore the due process clause applies.

https://reason.com/2025/01/31/the-government-says-money-isnt-property-so-it-can-take-yours/

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Feb 24, 2025 at 10:41:38 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]>
wrote:

In economic terms, money isn't property. It's a denomination of past
labor and earnings paid to a business's capital until there is a purchase
of property. It's for convenience in economies in which the vast
majority of economic exchanges do not involve barter.

But this isn't a legal argument, till now.

The government fined a business $50,000 for a labor law violation. An administrative hearing was held, but the argument is that the
administrative law judge wasn't impartial as an employee of the
enforcement department of the agency.

That's such a 'duh' argument it should never even have to have been made.

But of course, our courts are full of LAW & ORDER judges who are ethically required to make the wrong ruling every time.

The business demanded due process, a trial in actual federal district court.

The government presented these arguments that he has no right to due
process:

(1) the government creates money, so you can't own it (fiat currency);

Wow. Just wow.

(2) the government can tax your money, so you don't own it; and

(3) the Constitution allows the government to spend money for the
"general welfare."

I'd like to see a pickpocket or a fraudster make that argument at his criminal trial.

The government's arguments cite the Legal Tender Cases (I am aware of
the outcome but not the arguments). Debtors could not demand specie or
hard currency to repay debts. They were required to accept fiat
currency.

Except that's not true.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm

There is no federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law that says otherwise.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:

Feb 24, 2025 at 10:41:38 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]>:

In economic terms, money isn't property. It's a denomination of past
labor and earnings paid to a business's capital until there is a purchase >>of property. It's for convenience in economies in which the vast
majority of economic exchanges do not involve barter.

But this isn't a legal argument, till now.

The government fined a business $50,000 for a labor law violation. An >>administrative hearing was held, but the argument is that the >>administrative law judge wasn't impartial as an employee of the
enforcement department of the agency.

That's such a 'duh' argument it should never even have to have been made.

I didn't follow that argument at all. Nearly every federal agency has administrative hearings. Do any of them have administrative law judges
who aren't full-time employees?

But of course, our courts are full of LAW & ORDER judges who are ethically >required to make the wrong ruling every time.

The business demanded due process, a trial in actual federal district court.

The government presented these arguments that he has no right to due >>process:

(1) the government creates money, so you can't own it (fiat currency);

Wow. Just wow.

We have a word for labor that is stolen. It's used in that obscure
Amendment XIII that isn't taught in law school.

The government just made an indirect argument for slavery.

(2) the government can tax your money, so you don't own it; and

(3) the Constitution allows the government to spend money for the
"general welfare."

I'd like to see a pickpocket or a fraudster make that argument at his >>criminal trial.

The government's arguments cite the Legal Tender Cases (I am aware of
the outcome but not the arguments). Debtors could not demand specie or
hard currency to repay debts. They were required to accept fiat
currency.

Except that's not true.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm

There is no federal statute mandating that a private business, a person,
or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods
or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies
on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law that says otherwise.

I've never read the Legal Tender Cases. This is specific to repayment of
debts, not two parties entering into a new commercial transaction.

In the debt, unless the two parties contracted for repayment in specie
or gold or silver certificates, I don't see how the creditor could
refuse to accept fiat currency from the debtor once issued by the
government. We're not talking about the bad old days in which banks
issued their own currency, including previous national banks.

I'm guessing that the legal question in these cases was whether fiat
currency was legal tender under any circumstances and not overriding
terms of payment or repayment agreed to by the two parties in a
commercial transaction.

Am I correct?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)