If you don’t know who Dr. Chris Leithner is, listen to this interview. Chris will be speaking at the Mises Seminar on the following topic: “The Evil Princes of Martin Place: The Panic of 2008 and Why We Should End the RBA”.
Next speaker I’m interviewing is Dr. Andrew Dahdal, who is speaking about why fiat paper money is unconstitutional. Did you know the founders of Australia were against government paper money? That’s why they inserted section 115 into our Constitution: ‘A State shall not coin money, nor make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts’. Stay tuned for the interview, and feel free to suggest questions I should ask Dahdal.
“A State shall not….”- this is not the same as the Federal Government being denied permission. Maybe the framers wanted the Federal Government to have a monopoly in this regard?
Sure – you might say this section only applies to the state governments. But it was clearly important enough to the founders for them to put it in. This suggests a broader hostility towards paper money!
And even if it did only apply to the states, does that mean the federal government can ignore it and force the states to disobey the provision – by requiring state governments to accept paper money?
Let’s not forget that prior to the Banknotes Act of 1910 we had a system of free banking in Australia, with private banks issuing their own notes. This was the environment in which the framers crafted the Constitution.
My point is that the founders (forgers?) of our constitution had in mind the idea that Canberra would gain power over time, at the expense of the States.
Here’s the antidote to those who say the US Fed is perfectly constitutional and legal.
Similar arguments apply in Australia, but to a lesser extent because our federal government has more authority over money than the US Congress.