ALPHA. (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 02, 2011, 04:20:04 PM |
|
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148 So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants. http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfare
|
|
|
|
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1010
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 02, 2011, 04:24:20 PM |
|
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148 So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants. http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfareGee thanks for the history lesson. Why then do you think this was written. We already know why you don't think it was written. Maybe you think it was written so Martians won't come here to eat our gubbermint cheese?
|
Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 02, 2011, 05:31:59 PM |
|
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148 So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants. http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfareUm, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many.
|
|
|
|
ALPHA. (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 02, 2011, 06:00:22 PM |
|
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148 So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants. http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfareUm, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many. The opinion among the founding fathers was consistent. In the end, there can only be one perspective. Compromise leads to tyranny.
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 02, 2011, 06:11:24 PM |
|
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148 So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants. http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfareUm, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many. The opinion among the founding fathers was consistent. In the end, there can only be one perspective. Compromise leads to tyranny. And the founding fathers raised taxes for the general welfare. No contradiction there.
|
|
|
|
ALPHA. (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 02, 2011, 06:13:16 PM |
|
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148 So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants. http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfareUm, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many. The opinion among the founding fathers was consistent. In the end, there can only be one perspective. Compromise leads to tyranny. And the founding fathers raised taxes for the general welfare. No contradiction there. They raised taxes to support only limited infrastructure and services allotted specifically in the constitution.
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 02, 2011, 06:18:05 PM |
|
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148 So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants. http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfareUm, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many. The opinion among the founding fathers was consistent. In the end, there can only be one perspective. Compromise leads to tyranny. And the founding fathers raised taxes for the general welfare. No contradiction there. They raised taxes to support only limited infrastructure and services allotted specifically in the constitution. You should read up on Hamilton and Washington. They went a lot further from day 1.
|
|
|
|
ALPHA. (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 02, 2011, 06:18:47 PM |
|
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148 So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants. http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfareUm, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many. The opinion among the founding fathers was consistent. In the end, there can only be one perspective. Compromise leads to tyranny. And the founding fathers raised taxes for the general welfare. No contradiction there. They raised taxes to support only limited infrastructure and services allotted specifically in the constitution. You should read up on Hamilton and Washington. They went a lot further from day 1. Hamilton was evil and far from a true American. He was tied directly to the foreign central banks.
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 02, 2011, 06:24:56 PM |
|
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148 So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants. http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfareUm, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many. The opinion among the founding fathers was consistent. In the end, there can only be one perspective. Compromise leads to tyranny. And the founding fathers raised taxes for the general welfare. No contradiction there. They raised taxes to support only limited infrastructure and services allotted specifically in the constitution. You should read up on Hamilton and Washington. They went a lot further from day 1. Hamilton was evil and far from a true American. He was tied directly to the foreign central banks. And there we have it. He was a founding father as were Washington and Jefferson. It seems that they were not consistent after all were they?
|
|
|
|
ALPHA. (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 02, 2011, 06:27:58 PM |
|
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148 So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants. http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfareUm, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many. The opinion among the founding fathers was consistent. In the end, there can only be one perspective. Compromise leads to tyranny. And the founding fathers raised taxes for the general welfare. No contradiction there. They raised taxes to support only limited infrastructure and services allotted specifically in the constitution. You should read up on Hamilton and Washington. They went a lot further from day 1. Hamilton was evil and far from a true American. He was tied directly to the foreign central banks. And there we have it. He was a founding father as were Washington and Jefferson. It seems that they were not consistent after all were they? Most of them didn't like him: He became the leader of the Federalist Party, created largely in support of his views, and was opposed by the Democratic-Republican Party, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.He got killed in a duel for a reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr-Hamilton_duelThis nation was not founded on the philosophy of the Federalists like Hamilton.
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 02, 2011, 06:34:46 PM |
|
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148 So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants. http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfareUm, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many. The opinion among the founding fathers was consistent. In the end, there can only be one perspective. Compromise leads to tyranny. And the founding fathers raised taxes for the general welfare. No contradiction there. They raised taxes to support only limited infrastructure and services allotted specifically in the constitution. You should read up on Hamilton and Washington. They went a lot further from day 1. Hamilton was evil and far from a true American. He was tied directly to the foreign central banks. And there we have it. He was a founding father as were Washington and Jefferson. It seems that they were not consistent after all were they? Most of them didn't like him: He became the leader of the Federalist Party, created largely in support of his views, and was opposed by the Democratic-Republican Party, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.He got killed in a duel for a reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr-Hamilton_duelThis nation was not founded on the philosophy of the Federalists like Hamilton. Actually it was. He served under Washington and helped Jefferson get elected. All three maintained a national debt and a national bank and used implied powers to run the country. Your problem is that you want to cherrypick your facts.
|
|
|
|
ALPHA. (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 02, 2011, 06:38:14 PM |
|
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148 So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants. http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfareUm, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many. The opinion among the founding fathers was consistent. In the end, there can only be one perspective. Compromise leads to tyranny. And the founding fathers raised taxes for the general welfare. No contradiction there. They raised taxes to support only limited infrastructure and services allotted specifically in the constitution. You should read up on Hamilton and Washington. They went a lot further from day 1. Hamilton was evil and far from a true American. He was tied directly to the foreign central banks. And there we have it. He was a founding father as were Washington and Jefferson. It seems that they were not consistent after all were they? Most of them didn't like him: He became the leader of the Federalist Party, created largely in support of his views, and was opposed by the Democratic-Republican Party, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.He got killed in a duel for a reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr-Hamilton_duelThis nation was not founded on the philosophy of the Federalists like Hamilton. Actually it was. He served under Washington and helped Jefferson get elected. All three maintained a national debt and a national bank and used implied powers to run the country. Your problem is that you want to cherrypick your facts. No, the other founding father's found no allotment for a national bank in the constitution. The power is not strictly listed. The constitution was written to explicitly give the federal government certain powers; they are enumerated. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were opposed to a central bank. In fact, Jefferson found nothing of it in his strict study of the constitution. Again, the powers that are given are not broad nor implied but very strictly limited. "Opinions of Hamilton have run the gamut: both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson viewed him as unprincipled and dangerously aristocratic. Aaron Burr and Hamilton became personal enemies."
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 02, 2011, 06:41:12 PM |
|
...snip...
No, the other founding father's found no allotment for a national bank in the constitution. The power is not strictly listed. The constitution was written to explicitly give the federal government certain powers; they are enumerated. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were opposed to a central bank. In fact, Jefferson found nothing of it in his strict study of the constitution. Again, the powers that are given are not broad nor implied but very strictly limited.
They opposed it in opposition. Once elected, they supported it. You are confusing the cut and thrust of electoral politics with the principles that guide people's actions after they are elected.
|
|
|
|
ALPHA. (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 02, 2011, 06:46:32 PM |
|
...snip...
No, the other founding father's found no allotment for a national bank in the constitution. The power is not strictly listed. The constitution was written to explicitly give the federal government certain powers; they are enumerated. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were opposed to a central bank. In fact, Jefferson found nothing of it in his strict study of the constitution. Again, the powers that are given are not broad nor implied but very strictly limited.
They opposed it in opposition. Once elected, they supported it. Prove this. Also, can we really hold this man as a genuine founding father? "Early in the Convention he made a speech proposing a President-for-Life; it had no effect upon the deliberations of the convention. He proposed to have an elected President and elected Senators who would serve for life, contingent upon "good behavior" and subject to removal for corruption or abuse; this idea contributed later to the hostile view of Hamilton as a monarchist sympathizer, held by James Madison."
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 02, 2011, 06:50:00 PM |
|
...snip...
No, the other founding father's found no allotment for a national bank in the constitution. The power is not strictly listed. The constitution was written to explicitly give the federal government certain powers; they are enumerated. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were opposed to a central bank. In fact, Jefferson found nothing of it in his strict study of the constitution. Again, the powers that are given are not broad nor implied but very strictly limited.
They opposed it in opposition. Once elected, they supported it. Prove this. Also, can we really hold this man as a genuine founding father? "Early in the Convention he made a speech proposing a President-for-Life; it had no effect upon the deliberations of the convention. He proposed to have an elected President and elected Senators who would serve for life, contingent upon "good behavior" and subject to removal for corruption or abuse; this idea contributed later to the hostile view of Hamilton as a monarchist sympathizer, held by James Madison." Read up on Jefferson and Madison in office. Both carried on with national banks. Its not really up to you to decide who is and is not a founding father. There is a list - he is on it. Some of his ideas were good and some were not. You of all people should appreciate that is true of all of us.
|
|
|
|
deslok
Sr. Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 462
Merit: 250
It's all about the game, and how you play it
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 03, 2011, 02:40:13 AM |
|
Atlas how is it that you can support the founding fathers(who created the system that evolved into what we have today) with such fervor in one moment, and in another claim that the only proper system is a total anarchy, you cannot have both systems co-exist.
|
"If we don't hang together, by Heavens we shall hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin
If you found that funny or something i said useful i always appreciate spare change 1PczDQHfEj3dJgp6wN3CXPft1bGB23TzTM
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 03, 2011, 02:51:52 AM |
|
Atlas how is it that you can support the founding fathers(who created the system that evolved into what we have today) with such fervor in one moment, and in another claim that the only proper system is a total anarchy, you cannot have both systems co-exist.
Because the perfect is the enemy of the good.
|
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
barbarousrelic
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 03, 2011, 03:38:40 AM |
|
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148 So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants. http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfareUm, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many. Very true! Here's another opinion, from James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" "With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
|
Do not waste your time debating whether Bitcoin can work. It does work.
"Early adopters will profit" is not a sufficient condition to classify something as a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. If it was, Apple and Microsoft stock are Ponzi schemes.
There is no such thing as "market manipulation." There is only buying and selling.
|
|
|
|