Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="GoldFinger1969, post: 26805000, member: 73489"]Yes, that's what some of the commentaries on The Gold Clause Cases have noted. They really are among the most under-analyzed Supreme Court decisions in history -- they are still relevant today. The gist of the legal comments today on The Gold Clause Cases from 1935 is that it would be difficult for one branch of government -- the judiciary -- to enforce something like the Gold Clauses, a debt default, etc....against the executive or legislative branches.  Separation of powers, sovereign immunity, etc.  SPECIFIC violations -- like reneging on a contract's terms such as FIRREA -- are one thing.  But areas involving the economy, monetary policy, etc. -- no court is likely to wade into that arena, not even the Supreme Court. On the surface, I agreed with the plaintiff in PERRY and the other non-governmental Gold Clause cases.  But considering the government's insistence that you couldn't get/spend gold at the new higher dollar rate, the Court was at least creative and consistent in their thinking. Here's some good reading on the subject of if and how a court can get into legal judgements involving another branch of government, like the Executive Branch in The Gold Clause Cases. It gets very legalistic in the back half of the piece, but the reading goes quick and the first half gets you enough up-to-speed.[/QUOTE]