Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Montana Lawmaker Wants To Be Paid In Gold

November 16, 2012 by  

Montana Lawmaker Wants To Be Paid In Gold

A Montana State lawmaker sent a letter expressing a lack of faith in the U.S. dollar and asking the Legislature to pay his annual $7,000 salary in gold. The State says it isn’t going to happen.

Representative Jerry O’Neil, a Republican, said he requested the salary in coins because gold-advocating constituents told him that he was violating his Constitutional duty by accepting fiat dollars not backed by gold as payment.

“I believe that if you take a look at the Constitution, that’s what it says. Actually, I think we’ve gotten a tremendously long way from it,” O’Neil said of a Constitutional mandate that government debts be paid with gold-backed money.

“If we don’t start paying that debt down, we’re going to lose the country,” he told POLITICO.

But Jaret Coles, a legislative staff attorney for the State, says that O’Neil isn’t going to receive gold as payment for his service.

“The United States Constitution does not require states to pay debts in gold and silver. Additionally, there is no specific authority in the Montana Code Annotated for an agency to pay debts using gold or silver for services,” according to Coles.

O’Neil said that since the State will not comply with his request, he’s considering having his paycheck direct deposited to a coin dealer and then collecting the sum in gold and silver coin.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Montana Lawmaker Wants To Be Paid In Gold”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Dwight Mann

    Dont we all? It is one of the few viable forms of currency. . .

  • Dave

    All he needs to do is purchase gold or silver coins himself with it if that’s what he wants to do. To expect the State of Montana to pay him in gold or silver coins is a bit over the top. The simple fact is that there isn’t enough gold or silver on the planet to back our current level of fiat currency (to which we’re adding to every month). The U.S. isn’t alone in this, very few nations currencies are backed by gold or silver and they aren’t 100% (although even 10% is better than nothing).

    • Vigilant

      “To expect the State of Montana to pay him in gold or silver coins is a bit over the top.”

      Then you must believe that respecting the Constitution is “a bit over the top.”

      Witness Article I, Section 10 of that document: “No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts…”

      Representative Jerry O’Neil is correct, and Jaret Coles is wrong in saying “The United States Constitution does not require states to pay debts in gold and silver.”

      • tlgeer

        The states didn’t but the Federal Government did. And they had the right to.

  • Charlie

    Gold and Silver are Constitutional as well as Biblical Law Money … The Montana Freemen proved out the stupidity of most of the people of Montana regarding so called money,,,BUT,,,they paid a heavy price to educate some people that serve the state god and fed god … I don’t know of any state in USA Inc. that is basically in compliance with The Constitution and / or The Holy Bible … A very good reason to secede,,,but,,, don’t jump from the frying pan into the fire!!!
    Know Law and go with The King’s Law…………. Meanwhile………….
    Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

    Charlie Freedom

  • boyscout

    Sounds like we are focused on an individual with a law degree desperately screaming for attention in the wilderness. He has made his point. What’s next ? Wellfare paid in gold and silver ? How about no check or direct deposist for me; I want bullion ! Duh, like nobody knows that we are lining a financial lie.

    • Charlie

      Thanks for your point NO point,,,but,,,did you get the point???

  • Charles A

    This is great. As if there aren’t enough things to worry about, now, Montana has to deal with a legislator who is intelligent enough to recognize the fact that the U.S. dollar is being ravaged and will soon be worthless.

  • Vicki

    From the OP – Jaret Coles, a legislative staff attorney for the State says:
    “The United States Constitution does not require states to pay debts in gold and silver.”

    Hmmm…. Well no one said lawyers had to be smart to be lawyers.

    US Constitution Article 1 Section 10 – Powers Prohibited of States
    “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;…..”

    So clear a first grade English student could comprehend its meaning.

  • tlgeer

    “A Montana State lawmaker sent a letter expressing a lack of faith in the U.S. dollar and asking the Legislature to pay his annual $7,000 salary in gold. The State says it isn’t going to happen.”

    Since our money is not backed by either silver or gold, the US does not have to provide him with gold.

    Unless he is just doing this to create controversy I would take the payment that he is given and invest in gold. Nobody is stopping him.

  • tlgeer

    All of you that are siding with him should read the US Supreme Court ruling in Perry v United States

    • Vicki

      And just what part of Perry v United States do you feel is pertinent to the case at hand which is between a state and an individual rather than between the United States and a private bond holder?

      • tlgeer

        It seems that you didn’t read it. Ok, here are the parts that I was referring to. They are explaining what our Governments obligations are, and what they cannot do.

        5. By virtue of the power to borrow money “on the credit of the United States,” Congress is authorized to pledge that credit as assurance of payment as stipulated — as the highest assurance the Government can give — its plighted faith. To say that Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise, a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pledgor. P. 294 U. S. 351.

        6. When the United States, with constitutional authority, makes contracts, it has rights and incurs responsibilities similar to those of individuals who are parties to such instruments. P. 294 U. S. 352.

        7. The right to make binding obligations is a power of sovereignty. P. 294 U. S. 353.

        8. The sovereignty of the United States resides in the people, and Congress cannot invoke the sovereignty of the people to override their will as declared in the Constitution. P. 294 U. S. 353.

        9. The power given Congress to borrow money on the credit of the United States is unqualified and vital to the Government, and the binding quality of the promise of the United States is of the essence of the credit pledged. P. 294 U. S. 353.

        10. The fact that the United States may not be sued without its consent is a matter of procedure which does not affect the legality and binding character of its contracts. P. 294 U. S. 354.

        11. Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, declaring that “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned,” is confirmatory of a fundamental principle, applying as well to bonds issued after, as to those issued before, the adoption of the Amendment, and the expression “validity of the public debt ” embraces whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations. P. 294 U. S. 354.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.