Re: In committing injustice, government argues that money isn't property

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:06:51 -0800, Pluted Pup wrote:

On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 22:41:38 -0800, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>

In economic terms, money isn't property. It's a denomination of past
labor and earnings paid to a business's capital until there is a purchase
of property. It's for convenience in economies in which the vast
majority of economic exchanges do not involve barter.
>
But this isn't a legal argument, till now.
>
The government fined a business $50,000 for a labor law violation. An
administrative hearing was held, but the argument is that the
administrative law judge wasn't impartial as an employee of the
enforcement department of the agency.
>
The business demanded due process, a trial in actual federal district court.
>
The government presented these arguments that he has no right to due
process:
>
(1) the government creates money, so you can't own it (fiat currency);
>
(2) the government can tax your money, so you don't own it; and
>
(3) the Constitution allows the government to spend money for the
"general welfare."
>
I'd like to see a pickpocket or a fraudster make that argument at his
criminal trial.
>
The government's arguments cite the Legal Tender Cases (I am aware of
the outcome but not the arguments). Debtors could not demand specie or
hard currency to repay debts. They were required to accept fiat
currency.
>
Institute for Justice pointed to plenty of other Supreme Court opinions
in which money is property and therefore the due process clause applies.
>
https://reason.com/2025/01/31/the-government-says-money-isnt-property-so-it-can-take-yours/

>
Another misleading post, you should put the URL first, to avoid
tricking people from reading your post to end up with a
URL to Reason, with it's track record of misleading articles.
>
The actual story in Reason magazine made the claim that the government
made the claim that you claimed you validly summarized. But that
Reason article is not properly referenced and constitutes a blinding
link; where, exactly, in their misleading link:
>
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.255899/gov.uscourts.dcd.255899.18.0.pdf

I didn't digest it, as it's as good as a blind link, but spotted:

"Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court has long recognized that Congress may authorize the Executive Branch to administer immigration laws like the H-2B program and
may impose money penalties for violations of those laws. Put simply, because "control of the
admission of aliens is committed exclusively to Congress,"

So is this a hint of the real story, that this is an immigration case,
specifically an illegal employment of illegal immigrants case?
Any comment in actual defense of the accused and not just
rhetorical claims that it is illegal to illegalize illegal
activity, because immigration is always good and it's always
bad to oppose good things?

As I recall you've insisted for years that Irishmen who
oppose immigration can not be considered legitimate because
you've defined the Irish as an ethnic group as unanimously
uncritical supporters of immigration, a debasing political
judgement that you and other immigration as panacea salesmen
have made.

>
does the government make the claim that:
>
The government presented these arguments that he has no right to due
process:
>
(1) the government creates money, so you can't own it (fiat currency);
>
(2) the government can tax your money, so you don't own it; and
>
(3) the Constitution allows the government to spend money for the
"general welfare."
>

I'd like to see a pickpocket or a fraudster make that argument at his
criminal trial.

>
Defendants have said much stupider things, and have won.
>
And I'd like to see a prosecutor use that Reason article as
a legal reference, but not really. Prosecutors have already
used tabloid trash, worse than Reason, as veracious legal
references, and have secured convictions.