The United States Constitution declares, in Article I, Section 10, “No State shall  make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”  State-Level Constitutional Tender laws seek to nullify federal legal tender laws in the state by authorizing payment in gold and silver or a paper note backed 100% by gold or silver.

CLICK HERE for the text of the Constitutional Tender Act

Legend: Blue – Introduced. Yellow – Passed one or more houses.
Red – Became Law. Purple – Failed Vote.

2012 Legislation (scroll down for previous session activity)

2011 Legislation

2010 Legislation
Legend: Blue – Introduced. Yellow – Passed one or more houses.
Red – Became Law. Black – Failed Vote.

Colorado
HB09-1206 (postponed “indefinitely” on 02-17-09)
Georgia
Constitutional Tender Act HB430
Indiana
Honest Money Act SB453
Missouri
HB561 – Electronic Gold Currency
Montana
HB639

52 thoughts on “Constitutional Tender Legislation

  1. J Clark

    Our system of taxation has created one of the most corrupt bodies of government. The taxes collected by the Federal Government are dispersed out to individual States (e.g., pork) that even the most honest congressman cannot deny. The taxation proposal summarized below is revolutionary and totally out of the box. Why does the Federal Government collect revenue from individual citizens then turn around and give it right back to the States? Just cut out the middle man by allowing each State to collect the revenue needed, and then the Federal Government could collect revenue directly from each State based on the number of congressmen the State sends to the HR in D.C. For example, TN sends 9 congressmen to the HR in D.C. That’s 2.07% of the 435 seats in the HR. TN would be required to pay 2.07% of the Federal Government’s expenses for that year. This allows the citizens of TN and the Government of TN to decide how to collect revenues, and reduces State wealth distribution.

    • Joe Collins

      I agree. I have been saying this for a some time. We (the citizen) should only pay one, i.e the state or the federal gov…………We are a state resident, let us pay the state, the state join the union, let the state pay their union dues. The federal gov. is limited by the constitution and presently much to expensive. The state sends representatives and the state should pay their own representatives. The Federal gov. should only be paid for protecting the union from foreign threats, controlling boarders, strictly the limited work directly given to the federal gov. by our constitution. The state works for the people and the federal gov. works for the state and the people. I agree..Joe Collins

  2. D Morrison

    "…and reduces State wealth distribution." J Clark, please elaborate on how this would work or what you mean by it. Thanks.

  3. jim edwards

    J Clark:

    Sorry, you're wrong; your tax scheme is not "revolutionary and totally out of the box."

    What you're describing is the original system that's written in the Constitution, for involuntary taxes on individuals [not for tarrifs - those are indirect taxes and can be avoided by changing purchasing habits].

    See Article I, section 2, paragraph 3:
    "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers…"

    [the paragraph continues with the 3/5 compromise, which was overrridden by the 14th Amendment. ]

    It wasn't until 1913 that the 16th Amendment gave the Federal government the new powers to "lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

    • Hoppy

      I always wondered, Just when and which States Ratified that Ammendment? I have been told that it was never properly ratified by the required number of States.

      • I have heard that as well. But what's important to keep in mind isn't whether or not the 16th amendment was lawfully ratified. But the fact that it IS, and that the national(ist) government has far more guns than any one individual (which, by the way, the amendment allows them to tax). So the point is officially moot.

        The net effect is, "pay your taxes, or we will kill you and confiscate your property." Think I'm wrong?…try NOT paying your taxes. Then, when arrogant, ill-tempered, heavily-armed men in government-issued clown suits come in force…attempt to defend yourself and your family.

  4. Jamie

    Back in the day Lincoln claimed a gold standard would reliquish from life all things that are enjoyable. You see where that got us! Now we have an unconstitutional debt to the privately owned federal reserve. The amount of money in the US should always be and should have always been backed by the gold standard as opposed to an imaginary system that makes our money worth the debt that was loaned to us. I am proud to live in Missouri I'm doing more than hoping that this gets passed but I am trying the best one person can to help assure public officials that this is the right course of action. I'm talking to my Mayor asap about this and from there I'll see where that takes me. We all need to stand up to the usurpitations of our rights and try and restore this country to the idea it was when it started

  5. EndlessGrowthDoom

    outstanding! we must do anything and everything to undermine this 3rd attempt at a national bank that they call the "federal" reserve which is really just deceptively named; as it is actually a corporation owned by commercial banks. 16th amendment, income tax, everything questionable that was "added later"- let *us* vote on it.

  6. Wouldn't it be funny if we wrote a law declaring that the federal reserve is 100% responsible for our debt.

  7. NeilBJ

    Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution give Congress the power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; "

    As I understand it, the purpose of this clause was to provide a common coin for the nation, rather than a multitude of coins minted by the various states. Since Congress has abandoned its responsibility to coin money, where does that leave us?

    If we should ever return to a metal standard ( gold and silver), and I fervently hope that we do, we should get rid of the "dollar" and all paper "money" should be designated by the weight of the metal it represents in ounces or grams. This would prevent printing more peices of paper (or token coins) than can acutally be backed up by the gold or silver on deposit.

    This also means that there can be no more fractional reserve banking. Banks cannot lend money they don't have; fractional reserve banking is a form of legalized counterfeiting. Every ounce of gold in circulation (actual or stored in a vault) would therefore represent tangible value.

  8. A gold standard, while a good start, isn't enough by itself.

    The fact is, it doesn't really matter what we use for money, what matters is *who issues it* and *in what quantity*

    While a metals-backed currency may be convenient, the accounting of scrip exchangeable for it must be controlled by congress, and the accounting must be completely transparent.

  9. We want a free market but a currency monopoly? I'm all for a value-backed currency, but not exclusively. Let multiple currencies coexist, and let them compete.

Leave a Reply