Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution: Overview and Application

 

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution: Overview

Article I, Section 8 outlines the powers of Congress, granting it the authority to legislate in specific areas essential to governance. It is a cornerstone of federal authority and delineates powers related to money, taxation, and commerce.

---

Key Clauses Relevant to Mr. Moore’s Case

1. The Power to Coin Money and Regulate Its Value

• Text:

  “The Congress shall have Power... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.”

• Meaning:

  • Congress has the exclusive authority to create money and regulate its value.
  • This provision emphasizes a currency system based on tangible standards (e.g., gold and silver, as implied by Article I, Section 10).

---

2. The Necessary and Proper Clause

• Text:

  “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

• Meaning:

  • Congress may pass laws needed to execute its constitutional powers, provided they align with the Constitution’s intent and principles.

---

Historical Context

When the Constitution was drafted, the Founders sought to avoid the economic instability and exploitation caused by unregulated and fiat-based currencies. The coining of money and regulation of its value were intended to:

1. Ensure a stable monetary system backed by tangible assets.
2. Prevent states or private entities from issuing unreliable paper currency.
3. Protect individuals and commerce from economic manipulation.

---

Application to Mr. Moore’s Case

1. Congress’s Exclusive Power to Coin Money

• Mr. Moore’s Argument:

  • His mortgage and foreclosure are based on fiat currency created by private banks (via the Federal Reserve system), which he contends violates Article I, Section 8.
  • Fiat currency, lacking tangible backing (gold or silver), undermines the intent of the Constitution to establish a stable and equitable monetary system.

• Key Issue:

  • The Federal Reserve, a private entity, creates fiat currency through fractional reserve banking. Mr. Moore argues that this system usurps Congress’s exclusive power to "coin Money" and "regulate the Value thereof," delegating a constitutional power to an unconstitutional entity.

2. Unconstitutional Delegation of Monetary Authority

• Federal Reserve’s Role:

  • The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 effectively transferred Congress’s constitutional power to regulate money to a centralized, private banking system.
  • Mr. Moore’s mortgage, tied to fiat currency created by this system, is therefore rooted in a structure that he argues violates Article I, Section 8.

• Legal Precedent:

  • In Julliard v. Greenman (1884), the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s authority to issue fiat currency. However, critics argue that delegating this power to private entities like the Federal Reserve exceeds constitutional bounds.
  • Mr. Moore can argue that this delegation undermines the constitutional safeguards for a stable, equitable monetary system.

3. Implications of Fiat Currency on His Mortgage

• Invalid Consideration:

  • Mr. Moore’s claim hinges on the argument that fiat currency lacks tangible value, making it invalid consideration in a mortgage contract.
  • If the money loaned to him was created without constitutional authority, the contract is arguably void, and enforcing foreclosure unjustly enriches the lender.

• Historical Alignment:

  • The Founders’ intent was to protect citizens from economic manipulation and instability caused by unsound money. Mr. Moore’s situation, wherein fiat money and usury perpetuate debt cycles, aligns with the very concerns Article I, Section 8 sought to address.

4. Necessary and Proper Clause

• Overreach of Power:
  • Mr. Moore can argue that Congress’s delegation of monetary power to the Federal Reserve under the "Necessary and Proper Clause" exceeds what is constitutionally permissible.
  • The resulting system disproportionately benefits private banks at the expense of citizens like Mr. Moore, contravening the equitable intent of Article I, Section 8.

---

Case Law and Historical Precedent

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819):

• The Court upheld Congress’s implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause but emphasized that all laws must align with constitutional principles.
• Relevance: Mr. Moore can argue that delegating monetary authority to the Federal Reserve violates constitutional principles, as it enables private entities to create money without tangible value, impacting his property rights.

Julliard v. Greenman (1884):

• This case affirmed Congress’s authority to issue paper money but did not address whether delegating this power to private entities is constitutional.
• Relevance: Mr. Moore’s case raises the question of whether the Federal Reserve’s issuance of fiat currency aligns with the original intent of Article I, Section 8.

Perry v. United States (1935):

• The Court acknowledged that altering the gold standard undermines contractual obligations.
• Relevance: Mr. Moore can argue that fiat currency undermines the constitutional intent to ensure stable, enforceable contracts.

---

Potential Violations in Mr. Moore’s Case

1. Delegation of Congressional Powers:

   • The Federal Reserve’s creation of fiat currency usurps Congress’s authority under Article I, Section 8. Mr. Moore’s mortgage, tied to this currency, is thus rooted in an unconstitutional system.

2. Unconstitutional Contracts:

   • A mortgage based on fiat currency lacks valid consideration, violating the equitable principles underlying Article I, Section 8.

3. Economic Harm:

   • The resulting foreclosure perpetuates an unconstitutional system that unjustly enriches private banks at the expense of individuals like Mr. Moore.

---

Conclusion

Article I, Section 8 establishes Congress’s exclusive power to create and regulate money. Mr. Moore’s defense rests on the argument that:

1. His mortgage, based on fiat currency, lacks constitutional legitimacy.
2. The Federal Reserve’s role in creating fiat money violates the Constitution’s intent.
3. Enforcing foreclosure based on such a system perpetuates unconstitutional economic exploitation.

This constitutional provision serves as a foundation for challenging the legitimacy of the financial system underpinning Mr. Moore’s foreclosure and defending his property rights.