Quote from the SC decision:
“The United States maintains a dual system of banking, made up of parallel federal and state banking systems. That dual system allows privately owned banks to choose whether to obtain a charter from the Federal Government or from a state government.”
There has been a recent development regarding state-sponsored banks and their ability to issue gold and silver-backed currencies. Let’s explore this further:
Supreme Court Ruling:
The Supreme Court upheld the state’s right to maintain its own charter and allow state banks to issue gold-backed currency, bypassing the Federal Reserve’s corporate system1.
This ruling was released on May 30, 2024, and marks a significant step toward decentralization in the banking sector.
Dual Banking System:
Each state in the USA operates its own banking system, parallel to the Federal Reserve.
State-sponsored banks now have the option to acquire gold reserves and disband from the Federal Reserve system.
This effectively establishes a dual banking system where state banks can operate independently of the corporate Fed system.
Implications:
States that choose to issue gold and silver-backed currencies can potentially reduce their reliance on the Federal Reserve.
It also opens the door for alternative forms of currency within individual states. Other States:
South Carolina, for example, has taken steps toward recognizing gold and silver as legal tender23.
Louisiana, Utah, and Texas have also passed legislation recognizing gold and silver as legal tender.
This development reflects a growing interest in alternative monetary systems and highlights the ongoing debate over the role of central banks and state autonomy.
Article 1 Section 10 of the constitution disagrees with this analysis of yours, dawg
explizane
When you read the opinion, did you see anything in it that actually agreed with the idea that states could have their own currency?
Which page do the words "silver" or "gold" appear in the opinion?
Gold and silverbugs are torturing the fuck out of this opinion to make it fit their narrative, which has no basis in reality.
At this point we should be trying to squeeze open any loophole to make this happen
It's not a loophole. The source for the analysis is literally a silver salesman. It doesn't cite anything in the opinion itself to suggest any sort of override to Article 1 S 10 of the Constitution.