Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution: Overview and Application

-

 

Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution: Overview

Article I, Section 10 sets specific limits on the powers of state governments. Among its provisions, the section directly addresses monetary practices, ensuring uniformity in the nation’s economic and financial systems.

Relevant Clause

No State Shall...

"...coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts..."

Key Principles

  1. Prohibition Against States Issuing Money:
    States are forbidden from creating their own currency or issuing bills of credit, ensuring that monetary authority remains centralized in Congress as outlined in Article I, Section 8.

  2. Gold and Silver Standard:
    States cannot make anything other than gold and silver coin legal tender for debt repayment. This clause reflects the framers' intent to ensure the stability of the monetary system by tying it to tangible assets (gold and silver).

Historical Context

The framers of the Constitution included this provision to:

  1. Prevent the economic instability caused by the issuance of unbacked paper money by states, which was common under the Articles of Confederation.
  2. Ensure a uniform and stable currency system based on intrinsic value, safeguarding citizens and commerce from the risks of inflation and devaluation.

Application to Mr. Moore’s Case

Article I, Section 10 is highly relevant to Mr. Moore’s argument regarding the invalidity of fiat currency and its role in the foreclosure of his property. Here’s how it applies:

1. Fiat Currency and Its Constitutional Legitimacy

  • Mr. Moore’s Argument:

    • The mortgage he entered into was based on fiat currency, which is neither gold nor silver. This violates the Constitution’s mandate that states can only recognize gold and silver as legal tender for debt repayment.
    • Since fiat currency lacks the constitutional backing required by Article I, Section 10, the mortgage contract lacks valid consideration, rendering it invalid.

  • Implication for Foreclosure:

    • If the original loan was based on unconstitutional tender (fiat currency), then the entire foundation of the foreclosure is illegitimate. Foreclosing on Mr. Moore’s property under such conditions would violate constitutional principles.

2. Federal Reserve Notes and Their Role

  • Federal Reserve Notes as Legal Tender:
    • Since the U.S. transitioned off the gold standard (domestically in 1933 and internationally in 1971), Federal Reserve notes are backed only by the full faith and credit of the government, not by tangible assets like gold or silver.
    • Mr. Moore can argue that the use of fiat currency for contracts, including his mortgage, conflicts with the original constitutional intent of Article I, Section 10, which aimed to protect individuals from devaluation and economic instability.

3. Usury and Debt Cycles

  • Connection to Fiat Currency:
    • The reliance on fiat currency, coupled with interest-bearing loans, creates perpetual debt cycles. Article I, Section 10’s emphasis on gold and silver as tender was intended to avoid this type of economic exploitation.
    • Mr. Moore can argue that the foreclosure system, rooted in fiat currency, enriches lenders unjustly while violating the economic protections envisioned by the framers.

4. State Enforcement of Unconstitutional Practices

  • Prohibition on Bills of Credit:
    • States are prohibited from issuing bills of credit or accepting anything other than gold and silver as legal tender. By enforcing contracts based on fiat currency, state courts and officials (such as the Elbert County District Court and Sheriff) are effectively violating Article I, Section 10.
    • Mr. Moore can assert that his foreclosure is being executed under an unconstitutional framework that state actors have no authority to enforce.

Key Case Law Supporting Mr. Moore’s Position

Craig v. Missouri (1830)

  • Facts: Missouri issued loan certificates that were not backed by gold or silver and made them legal tender. The Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional under Article I, Section 10.
  • Relevance: This case reinforces that any monetary instruments not backed by gold or silver are unconstitutional for use as legal tender, supporting Mr. Moore’s argument that fiat currency violates constitutional standards.

Lane County v. Oregon (1868)

  • Facts: The Court ruled that Congress has exclusive authority to declare what constitutes legal tender for debts but reaffirmed the constitutional restrictions placed on states under Article I, Section 10.
  • Relevance: Although Federal Reserve notes are deemed legal tender by Congress, the original constitutional intent for gold and silver remains relevant in assessing the fairness and validity of contracts, including Mr. Moore’s mortgage.

Perry v. United States (1935)

  • Facts: This case addressed the government’s abrogation of gold clauses in contracts during the Great Depression. The Court recognized that altering monetary standards undermines the sanctity of contracts.
  • Relevance: Mr. Moore’s argument aligns with the Perry Court’s acknowledgment that shifting from a gold-backed system disrupts financial obligations and undermines constitutional principles.

Potential Violations in Mr. Moore’s Case

  1. Unconstitutional Mortgage Contract:

    • If Mr. Moore’s mortgage is based on fiat currency, it fails to meet the constitutional standard of gold or silver-backed consideration.

  2. Foreclosure Based on Unconstitutional Practices:

    • The state’s enforcement of foreclosure, rooted in fiat currency, violates the limitations imposed by Article I, Section 10 on legal tender.

  3. Economic Exploitation:

    • The use of fiat currency creates systemic financial instability, disproportionately burdening individuals like Mr. Moore and perpetuating economic exploitation.

Conclusion

Article I, Section 10 serves as a constitutional safeguard against the use of unbacked currency, ensuring fairness and stability in financial transactions. Mr. Moore’s case highlights how the reliance on fiat currency for contracts like mortgages undermines these protections.

By invoking Article I, Section 10, Mr. Moore can argue that:

  1. His mortgage contract lacks constitutional legitimacy.
  2. The foreclosure is being executed under an unconstitutional monetary framework.
  3. State actors enforcing such practices are violating their constitutional obligations.

This provision reinforces Mr. Moore’s defense and underscores the broader constitutional issues surrounding fiat currency and foreclosure practices.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Zachary Moore v. Alliant Credit Union et al. (2025) Affirmative Opinion in the Voice of Justice Alito

-
Image
  Supreme Court of the United States Zachary Moore v. Alliant Credit Union et al. Opinion of the Court by the voice of Justice Alito Delivered January 14, 2025 Today, this Court renders a decision of profound constitutional and societal importance. At issue is whether the foreclosure proceedings initiated by Alliant Credit Union against Mr. Zachary Moore—based on a mortgage loan derived from fiat currency—violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This case also raises broader questions about the legality of a monetary system that facilitates perpetual debt cycles through fiat currency and usury. After careful consideration, we hold that the foreclosure proceedings, as applied to Mr. Moore, constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of his rights to property and due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Further, we find that the systemic exploitation inherent in the fiat currency system and its application to the facts of...
Read more

Citing RICO Violations to stop unlawful debt collections

-
Who is Zach Moore? and what to know about my movement If you’re reading this, take it as a call to prepare—for yourself, your family, and the world around you. At the heart of my movement is a simple but powerful truth:  any contract secured with a lie, or a claim not backed by anything real (like the U.S. dollar and debt), cannot be enforced.  Moreover, those who attempt to collect on these fraudulent contracts are committing crimes and are liable to RICO charges for perpetuating a system built on deception. I’m Zachary Moore, and I’m leading a movement to destroy the U.S. dollar, bankrupt billionaires, and end the tyranny of usury. I grew up in a trailer in Alabama, surrounded by the poverty and oppression that debt creates. I worked my way out, earning $550,000 a year as a top sales consultant, but in 2023, I realized I was part of the problem—a system built on lies, fiat currency, and the exploitation of human labor. So, I walked away. I quit my lucrative job, defaulted on...
Read more

Response to Alliant Credit Union

-
  Re: Loan Number XXXX To whom it may concern, My name is Zachary Moore, owner of the property at [address redacted]. I received a letter in the mail from Alliant Credit Union dated December 15, 2023 citing information regarding a mortgage contract between myself and Alliant. I am challenging the validity of this contract.  As you know, in order for a contract to be valid, both parties must put up valid property for consideration. Without consideration, no contract can be lawfully valid.  This property must be rightfully owned by each party.  In the case of Alliant, the money loaned would need to be an asset on Alliant’s balance sheet prior to closing. As the loanee, I put up my own property for valid consideration. I put up a promissory note representing my ownership of my work and labor, a down payment of nearly $100,000, and title to the property at [address redacted] What property did Alliant put up? Please provide evidence that Alliant provided me, the loaner wi...
Read more