Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 5 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon 2 Tell A Friend 1 (8 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   16 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Are Public Banks Unconstitutional? No. Are Private Banks? Maybe.

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Valuable 5   Well Said 4   Supported 4  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H1 5/19/14

Become a Fan
  (173 fans)

Unconstitutional? by

The movement to break away from Wall Street and form publicly-owned banks continues to gain momentum. But enthusiasts are deterred by claims that a state-owned bank would violate constitutional prohibitions against "lending the credit of the state."

California's constitution is typical. It states in Section 17: "The State shall not in any manner loan its credit, nor shall it subscribe to, or be interested in the stock of any company, association, or corporation . . . ."

The language sounds prohibitive, but what does it mean? Hundreds of state and local government entities extend the credit of the state. State agencies make student loans, small business loans, and farm loans. State infrastructure banks explicitly leverage the credit of the state. Legally, state and local governments are extending their credit to private banks every time they deposit their revenues in those banks. When money is deposited, it becomes the property of the bank by law. The depositor becomes a creditor with an IOU or promise to be repaid. The state or local government has thus lent its money to the bank.

How can these blatant extensions of the state's credit be reconciled with the constitutional prohibitions against the practice?

North Dakota's constitution has particularly strong language. Article 10, Section 18, provides:

The state, any county or city may make internal improvements and may engage in any industry, enterprise or business, not prohibited by article XX of the constitution, but neither the state nor any political subdivision thereof shall otherwise loan or give its credit or make donations to or in aid of any individual, association or corporation except for reasonable support of the poor, nor subscribe to or become the owner of capital stock in any association or corporation.

Yet this prohibition has not prevented the state from establishing its own bank. Currently the nation's only state-owned depository bank, the Bank of North Dakota has been a stellar success and has been going strong ever since 1919. In Green vs. Frazier, 253 U.S. 233 (1920), the US Supreme Court upheld the bank's constitutionality against a Fourteenth Amendment challenge and deferred to the state court on the state constitutional issues, which had been decided in the state's favor.

In the nineteenth century, Mississippi, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, and Indiana all had their own state-owned banks. Some were extremely successful (Indiana had a monopoly state-owned bank). These banks, too, withstood constitutional challenge at the US Supreme Court level.

Were the prohibitions against "lending the credit of the state" simply ignored in these cases? Or might that language have meant something else?

The Constitutional Ban on "Bills of Credit": Colonial Paper Money

Constitutional provisions against lending the state's credit go back to the mid-nineteenth century. California's is in its original constitution, dated 1849. There was then no national currency, and the National Bank Act had not yet been passed.

Several decades earlier, the states had been colonies that issued their own currencies in the form of paper scrip. Typically called "bills of credit", these paper bills literally involved the extension of the colony's credit. They were credit vouchers used by the colony to pay for goods and services, which were good in trade for an equivalent sum in goods or services in the marketplace.

Prior to the constitutional convention in the summer of 1787, the colonies exercised their own sovereign power over monetary matters, including issuing their own paper money. After the collapse of the Continental currency during the Revolutionary War, largely due to counterfeiting by the British, the framers were so afraid of paper money that they expressly took that power away from the colonies-turned-states, and they failed to expressly give it even to the federal government. Article I, Section 10, of the U.S. Constitution provides:

No State shall . . . coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; . . . .

Congress was given the power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures." But language authorizing Congress to "emit Bills of Credit" was struck out after much debate.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3


Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including the best-selling WEB OF DEBT. In THE PUBLIC BANK SOLUTION, her latest book, she explores successful public banking models historically and (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

It's the Derivatives, Stupid! Why Fannie, Freddie and AIG Had to Be Bailed Out

Mysterious Prison Buses in the Desert


Libya: All About Oil, or All About Central Banking?

Borrowing from Peter to Pay Paul: The Wall Street Ponzi Scheme Called Fractional Reserve Banking

"Oops, We Meant $7 TRILLION!" What Hank and Ben Are Up to and How They Plan to Pay for It All


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
10 people are discussing this page, with 16 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)
A great article.Very informative to the public. ... by Nathan Nahm on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 at 12:46:07 AM
When enough people understand that private banks r... by Michael Dewey on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 at 6:18:45 AM
I support the intent of this article, to remove o... by david rempel on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 at 7:53:39 AM
There certainly should be clauses in state constit... by Steve Hudson on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 at 9:34:40 AM
Good to see ya here on OEN David. Thoughts that ... by Michael Dewey on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 at 10:33:42 AM
I am not a language expert (as everybody knows by ... by BFalcon on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 at 9:26:38 AM
When England lost the Revolutionary War with Ameri... by Lance Ciepiela on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 at 5:45:12 PM
Shared by Simon Pal Simon's Intelligentsia ... by Pal Palsimon on Wednesday, May 21, 2014 at 5:49:36 AM
Lance, I guess you saw the negotiations on this fo... by Pal Palsimon on Thursday, May 22, 2014 at 9:28:24 AM
The federal reserve act of 1913 and the worthless ... by Bill Johnson on Wednesday, May 21, 2014 at 7:23:44 AM
It will be good to have our 21st century version o... by Michael Dewey on Wednesday, May 21, 2014 at 8:32:59 AM
The proposed legislation was known as the Aldrich ... by Pal Palsimon on Wednesday, May 21, 2014 at 9:02:49 AM
Yours is an over-simplification of the long proce... by Pal Palsimon on Wednesday, May 21, 2014 at 9:13:57 AM
From the beginning of this country to the present ... by Pal Palsimon on Wednesday, May 21, 2014 at 9:16:35 AM
I think that what you suggest is admirable and oug... by Mark A. Goldman on Wednesday, May 21, 2014 at 10:48:40 AM
Yes; but, until the public takes direct oversight ... by Jill Herendeen on Thursday, May 22, 2014 at 7:59:42 AM