I call it a hypothetical scenario. One such hypothetical, could be a US of Earth. With the several states only having recourse to standing militias, why would there be any anarchy, sufficient to disturb the domestic tranquility or security of any given state?

Be sure you have the chronology in the right order. Government action for the sake of capital, against the interests of labor, dates back in embryo to the Washington administration (in this country), and in earnest to just after the Civil War. Government action in the other direction dates in embryo to the early 1900s (under Theodore Roosevelt's administration), and in earnest to the late 1930s (under the other Roosevelt). And of course, welfare per se has been with us only since the mid 1960s. It's clear which came first, and thus which could not have been the cause of the other.

As for the presumption of government, I do not see how, in the context of an industrial economy, the government can simply refuse to set policies and laws governing trade, labor, and immigration, and as long as it does so it will weight the scales of the capital/labor balance one way or the other.

Uh... I'm making no claims of chronology. Chicken? Egg? don't care.

We would have fewer problems if everyone were required to read their Constitution before they vote; especially in federal elections.

I think it can be considered a State's right, to nullify any federal authority concerning commodity money made of gold or silver "Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts", as it is specifically enumerated as a reserved right of the several and sovereign States of the Union.

Daniel, that passage you quoted said that this is NOT a right of the states, that coining money is in fact FORBIDDEN to the states. It's one of the powers reserved to the federal government.

States are only denied and disparaged the right to create fiat money.

Wrong. They're denied the right to create ANY money. That's what "coin money" means. And please note that in the passage you're focusing on, the verb is "make," not "allow."

Another way to interpret that clause, for comparison and contrast, would be to replace "but" with "except". "[M]ake any Thing, except gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payments of Debts;"

In other words, the States are only denied and disparaged the right to make any Thing that is not "gold or silver Coin a Tender in Payments of Debts;"

My mistake lies in trying to discuss limited government with a socialist.

Well, if you don't want to have your thoughts challenged, if you don't want to stretch your mind, if you prefer to live in that box, that's your privilege.

Daniel:

The passage you quoted states clearly, "No state shall coin money." That's not ambiguous, nor is there any way to use one of the other things the states are forbidden to do as a way to weasel around it. The states are NOT making something other than gold and silver legal tender, the federal government is, so this passage is not violated.

I think we would be better off, if our governments were limited by "division of labor" or function.

Yeah, who needs discussion with people you dont agree with anyway right?

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?

You have a point. But an already existing coin that is composed of gold or silver would comply with the letter of our Constitution and any laws pursuant to it.

Socialism and limited government are mutually exclusive.