- 1519 - The first ‘dollar’ was struck in Joachim’s Thal, Bavaria.
Historians generally first associate the “dollar” with one Count Schlick, who began striking such silver coins in 1519 in Joachim’s Thal, Bavaria. Originally called “Shlicktenthalers” or “Joachimsthalers” the coins became known known simply as “Thalers”, which transliterated into “dollars”. (footnote 1)
1.) Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution, (Chicago, Illinois R R Donnelly & Sons ., Inc., GoldMoney Foundation Special Edition  of the Second Revised Edition , 2002) by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Volume I, page 137.
- The Constitution itself refutes the modern claim that ‘the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution’.
The Constitution itself refutes the modern claim that “the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution”. (footnote 1) Article III states not only (by way of location) that “[t]he judicial power shall extend” only to certain defined types of “Cases” and “Controversies” involving certain categories of litigants. (footnote 2) logically, that may render the decision of a court on a constitutional issue the “law” of such a particular “Case[ ] or “Controvers[y]”, in the sense that it binds the litigants and their privies. But in no way suggests, let alone compels—indeed, it implicitly refutes—the contention that the decision is also the law of the land, in the sense that it binds anyone, let alone everyone, else who was not a party two that “Case[ ]” or “Controvers[y]”.
In the federal convention, when a motion was made to expand the Supreme Court’s reach to cases arising under “this Constitution”, James Madison “doubted whether it was not going to far to extend the jurisdiction * * *generally two cases arising under the Constitution & whether it ought not be limited to cases of a Judiciary Nature. The right of expounding the Constitution in cases not of this nature ought not to be given to that Department.” The motion was adopted, “it being generally supposed that the jurisdiction given was constructively limited to cases of a Judiciary nature”. (footnote 3) that is, the court could “expound[ ] the Constitution” only in “cases of a judiciary nature”. That the Framers understood this limitation to preclude even an advisory, let alone a supervisory, rôle for the Court—that is a Arising outside the specific judicial context of our “Case[ ]” or “Controvers[y[ ]”— is evidenced by the refusal to include judges in a Council of revision, (footnote 4) to include the Chief Justice in a presidential privy Council, (footnote 5) and to allow the President or the Houses of Congress to request advisory opinions from the courts. (footnote 6)
1.) Cooper v. Aaron, 358, U.S. 1, 18 (1958).
2.) U.S. Const. art. III, §§ 1, 2.
3.) Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States, H.R. Doc. No. 398, 69th Cong., 1st Sess. (1927), at 624-25. See Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Convention in the Constitution Held at Philadelphia in 1787, with a Diary of the Debates of the Congress of the Confederation: as Reported by James Madison, a Member and Deputy from Virginia (J. Elliot ed.), in 5 J. Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Government at Philadelphia in 1787 (2d ed. 1836), at 483; 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (M. Farrand ed. 1966), at 430. These editions of Madison’s notes differ in minor ways (primarily as to punctuation and capitalization), but without any substantive discrepancies.
4.) 1 The Records of the First Federal Convention of 1787 (M. Farrand ed. 1966), at 21, 97-98, 104, 108-10, 131, 138-40 141, 144-45; 2 Id. at 73-80, 298, 299.
5.) 2 Id. at 328-29, 34. Although The Committee of Detail reported such provision, the Convention never acted on it. Id. at 367.
6.) Id. at 341 (proposal never acted on).
- History of the ‘dollar’ in England and the American Colonies.
In 1704-1707 Queen Anne of England passed a proclamation followed by a statute of parliament that made the Spanish Milled Dollar the standard coin by which all other foreign coins were to be valued. (footnote 1) There were many other types of coins circulating (Portuguese, Dutch, etc.). England valued those coins in dollars (i.e,. Spanish Milled Dollar). So if there were a coin that had been minted in some other country that contained the same amount of silver as the Spanish Milled Dollar, that coin would be valued at “1 Dollar” (i.e., 1 Spanish Milled Dollar) in England and the American Colonies. So “regulating the value” of England’s Spanish Milled Dollar against other coinage was simply a matter of comparing weights and measures (amount of silver contained within the coin itself).
Queen Anne wasn’t “creating” something new. She was acknowledging, by proclamation and then a statute something that had already been going on in the market place of England and the American Colonies, which was the acceptance of the Spanish Milled Dollar by merchants as the standard medium (unit) of exchange.
1.) In an act for ascertaining the Rates of foreign Coins in her Majesty’s Plantations in America, 1707, 6 Anne, ch. 30 § I. Also see: Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution, (Chicago, Illinois R R Donnelly & Sons ., Inc., GoldMoney Foundation Special Edition  of the Second Revised Edition, 2002) by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Volume I, page 529.
- Alexander Hamilton’s Mint Report of 1791 recognized the constitutional ‘dollar’ to be minted as the U.S. monetary standard was to be a ‘substitute’ for the Spanish Milled Dollar.
Alexander Hamilton in his Mint Report of 1791 stated, “There is scarcely any point, in the economy of national affairs, of greater moment than the uniform preservation of the intrinsic value of the money unit. On this the security and steady value of property depend.” (footnote 1) Hamilton went on to say, “[t]he [silver] dollar is recommended by its corespondency with the present coin of that name for which it is designed to be a substitute [i.e., the Spanish Milled Dollar], which will facilitate its ready adoptions such in the minds of the citizens.” (footnote 2)
1.) H.R. Doc. No. 24, 1st Cong., 3d Sess. (1791) (“Hamilton’s Mint Report”), in 2 The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (J. Gales compil. 1834), Appendix, at 2071-73. Also see: Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution, (Chicago, Illinois R R Donnelly & Sons ., Inc., GoldMoney Foundation Special Edition  of the Second Revised Edition, 2002) by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Volume I, page 188.
2.) Id., at 2083-84. Emphasis supplied. Also see: Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution, (Chicago, Illinois R R Donnelly & Sons ., Inc., GoldMoney Foundation Special Edition  of the Second Revised Edition , 2002) by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Volume I, page 188-189.
- Where does the ‘dollar sign’ ($) come from?
Pictured above left is the Spanish Milled Dollar, front and back sides. It is a silver coin that was also known as a “Piece of Eight”, due to the fact that the coin would be cut into 8 equal pieces to “make change”. This coin would eventually become the model for the “Constitutional Dollar”, pictured on the right.
You will see on the back of the Spanish Milled Dollar (pictured above left, coin on the right), two pillars – “The Pillars of Hercules”. This was Gibraltar, part of Spain then, taken over later by the British. This was symbolic of Spanish exploration and colonization. Each pillar has a ribbon around it that says, “Nec plus ultra”, which means, “Nothing further beyond” (“this is the ultimate”).
*Look closely at the image on the left hand side above, the coin on the right — the pillar with the ribbon, and what is it the symbol for? It’s a “dollar” sign ($). If you take both pillars (2 vertical lines through the “S”) that’s another alternative for the “dollar” sign. Our “dollar” sign ($) comes from the back of the Spanish Milled Dollar