This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1843 edition. Excerpt: ... CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. CHAP. I. THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF ALL STATE LAWS RESTRAINING PRIVATE BANKING AND THE RATES OF INTEREST. The Constitution of the United States, (Art. 1, Sec. 10, ) declares that "No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracis." This clause does not designate what contracts have, and what have not, an " obligation." It leaves that question to be decided by the proper tribunals. But it plainly recognizes two things, as fixed, constitutional principles--first, that there are contracis that have an " obligation;" and, secondly, that the people have a right to enter into, and have the benefit of, all such contracts. The force of these implications will, perhaps, be more clearly seen, when applied to a particular contract, than when applied to contracts generally. Suppose, then, the constitution had merely said that no State should pass any law impairing the obligation of the marriage contract. This provision would have plainly implied, first, that marriage contracts were in their nature obligatory, --and, secondly, that men had a right to enter into that species of contract. But the implications, which would, in this case, have applied to marriage contracts, now apply, under the constitution as it is, to all contracts whatsoever, that are in their nature obligatory. That this constitutional prohibition, against " impairing the obligation of contracts," implies that there art contracts having an obligation, no one will deny. But that it also implies that men have a constitutional right to enter into all such contracts, seems also to be perfectly clear. Suppose the constitution had declared that no State should " pass any law impairing a man's right to recover the wages of his labor"--This prohibition would...

This paper analyzes the legal foundations of central bank digital currency (CBDC) under central bank and monetary law. Absent strong legal foundations, the issuance of CBDC poses legal, financial and reputational risks for central banks. While the appropriate design of the legal framework will up to a degree depend on the design features of the CBDC, some general conclusions can be made. First, most central bank laws do not currently authorize the issuance of CBDC to the general public. Second, from a monetary law perspective, it is not evident that “currency” status can be attributed to CBDC. While the central bank law issue can be solved through rather straithforward law reform, the monetary law issue poses fundmental legal policy challenges.

Alexander Hamilton was an American revolutionary, statesman, and Founding Father of the United States. In this report of 1791, he advocated a national bank called the Bank of the United States, modeled after the Bank of England. Hamilton believed that a national bank was required to stabilize and improve the nation's credit and to improve the financial order, clarity, and precedence of the United States government under the newly legislated Constitution.