PDA

View Full Version : WTF?? New Amendment proposal


PisnNapalm
03-27-2009, 09:43 PM
WTF is going on in Congress that anyone there would feel the need to even propose such an amendment?? Search it out for yourself, I pull this off the Library of Congress website. http://thomas.loc.gov


111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 41

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to prohibit the President from entering into a treaty or other international agreement that would provide for the United States to adopt as legal tender in the United States a currency issued by an entity other than the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 25, 2009

Mrs. BACHMANN (for herself, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. KIRK, Ms. FOXX, Mr. PITTS, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. WAMP, Ms. FALLIN, Mr. FLEMING, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. AKIN, Mr. ISSA, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. PAUL, Mr. CULBERSON, Mrs. BIGGERT, Mr. BROWN of South Carolina, Mr. JONES, Mr. POSEY, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, and Mr. CONAWAY) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to prohibit the President from entering into a treaty or other international agreement that would provide for the United States to adopt as legal tender in the United States a currency issued by an entity other than the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article--

`The President may not enter into a treaty or other international agreement that would provide for the United States to adopt as legal tender in the United States a currency issued by an entity other than the United States.'.

MACH1
03-27-2009, 09:49 PM
Yep. I think its a good thing too. How do you feel about a one world money with Russia and China. Geithner said he was open to moving the United States OFF of the U.S. dollar.

First he voiced a desire for new, shared powers with the FDIC that would enable him to break up financial companies at will.

Then, he took a walk on the currency wild side today by saying that he would be open to the idea that a different currency could be used to settle worldwide trading accounts. So why the controversy? Simply this: The currency he spoke of would replace the almighty U.S. dollar.

Geithner told the Council on Foreign Relations that he would be “quite open” to abandoning the U.S. dollar as the primary global reserve currency. According to reporting by our colleague Joanna Slater, Geithner said he could evaluate using a melded currency called Special Drawing Rights. Later, Geithner backtracked by saying that the dollar is still the world’s dominant reserve currency and that the U.S. is committed to ensuring it remains so. The White House had to issue a statement agreeing after Geithner’s remarks hurt the trading value of the dollar.

/2009/03/25/geithner-down-with-the-dollar-up-with-thesdr/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2009/03/25/geithner-down-with-the-dollar-up-with-thesdr/)

PisnNapalm
03-27-2009, 10:06 PM
I was initially wondering if there was a renewed push to adopt the Amero.

Preacher
03-27-2009, 10:25 PM
I think, in these times where nationalism is being poo-pooed for internationalism. . .

This is a great amendment.

Let me be as honest as possible.

U.S. A. FIRST. . . all other nations second. If we can help them, WONDERFUL, it is incumbent upon us to do so as part of the international community. But not to the detriment of the US.

TeeJay
03-27-2009, 10:34 PM
At least you get to keep yours. My esteemed Government is determined to see me in a land of the Euro!

F**k that shit....

If they want one currency in Europe then adopt Sterling...otherwise they can all just STFU. Why not totally sell us down the river and we can all use Nazi Gold as currency.

(Besides, my keyboard doesn't even have that crappy Euro symbol on it. Yet strangely enough does have and $ - Go figure!)

revefsreleets
03-28-2009, 09:31 AM
Strange times we live in...

Muppet13
03-28-2009, 10:35 AM
:noidea::noidea::noidea::noidea::noidea::noidea::n oidea:

hindes204
03-28-2009, 12:55 PM
This is actually a good thing....when i heard Geithner saying he was open to a world currency, i wanted to throw my tv out of the window

The Patriot
03-28-2009, 03:00 PM
At the rate things are progressing technologically, physical paper money might disapear in the next 50 years. Then, when everything is electronic, a treaty providing a global currency could be enacted overnight. This Act would bar a future president from doing that. It's a smart move. We don't want another League of Nations.

[insert Obama joke here]

PisnNapalm
03-28-2009, 03:58 PM
The thing of it is.... The Constitution says only the Senate can authorize a treaty with a foreign nation by a 2/3rds vote.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

Preacher
03-29-2009, 12:26 AM
The thing of it is.... The Constitution says only the Senate can authorize a treaty with a foreign nation by a 2/3rds vote.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm


For a formal treaty, you are right.. but the president can speak on issues and all but commit us to a course of action simply by his words. I think the specific wording of this amendment would assure that NO ONE but congress can make any agreements dealing with US currency.

I do like it, but think more thought should be put into it. Otherwise, I am afraid an active court may get into it later on and establish a different reading of the presidents power to make treaties based on this amendment's bad wording....