The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional!

[WAdude]

As Thomas Jefferson said, "I beleive that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies...if the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue (The Federal Reserve) of currency...the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered".


Anyways in Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution states:

"The Congress shall have Power......To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights Measures;"

...so only congress, not the Federal Reserve, should coin money and its value, not some private central bank that loans it to our government with an interest attached to every penny....

Also in the constitution Article I, Section 10 states:


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






...meaning that only gold and silver should be used as a currency, not paper, because as we know, for every US Dollar printed, there is an interest that the Federal Reserve (a private bank) puts on it. Rather than gold, that has no interest rate, and has a standard and solid value that is garunteed/set, or supposed to be garunteed/set, by congress.

Even Woodraw Wilson said in his later years after signing the central banking bill (called the Federal Reserve, that was written by the bankers themselves, not legislators, it was presented by Nelson Aldrich) in regret "I am a most unhappy man,I have unwittingly ruined my country, a great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and a vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion an duress of a small group of dominent men". Also Louis Mcfadden said "A world banking system was being setup here... a superstate being controlled by national bankers...acting together to enslave the world for their pleasure. The Fed has userped the government" , ofcourse two assasination attempts later he was killed.

So I dont get it, people notice many things unconstitutional, why is it that we let a Federal Reserve (thats not even federal, but privately owned) be?

Am I correct, please point out any mistakes, I havent really done much research so...


BTW, a currency, that was constitutional and did not put us farther in debt (because it did not come with an interest like the Federal Reserve dollar) was introduced, its called the liberty dollar (Liberty Dollar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), unfortunetly, they were accused of a lot of things and had to be shut down, by the Feds.

Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act (HR 2755), too bad they didnt pass it.

What do yall think, is the Federal Reserve good or bad, or what?

 

[hakr100]

Funniest post I've read in a long, long time.

What's next for you...making teaching of evolution illegal?

Where's William Jennings Bryan when you need him?

 

[WAdude]

Hahahahaha, it is funny huh.......if you disagree, then why do you? Points, facts, did I miss something, laws?

 

[WAdude]

And anyways, of the reasons for the American Revolution, many say the one that sticks out is the fact that King George outlawed the interest free, independent currency, that the colonies produced and used for themselves, thus making them borrow money from the Central Bank of England at interest, immidietly putting them into debt, because for every dollar (or whatever the currency was called) they used, the farther into debt they would get. You cannot pay a debt with a debt. Even Benjamin Franklin said, "With the refusal of King George III to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators was probably the prime cause of the revolution".

 

[AndyLL]

I think you answered your question in your own post:

"The Congress shall have Power......To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights Measures;"

They did that by creating a national bank.

You expect congressmen to man the presses themselves?

I thought you Cons were in favour of government privatizing typical governmental functions. Or is that only when it suits you?

Andy

( The constitutionality of the national bank has been argued about for over 200 years and the courts have always deemed it constitutional )

 

[WAdude]

No, I dont expect them to man the presses themselves, but in 1913, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act. This Act created the Federal Reserve system giving it the power to regulate the value of American's currency. The power to create money and regulate the value thereof is given to Congress by the U.S. Constitution. Thats what I mean. Thats not the Federal Reserves power, but the Congress'.

Now you ask yourself, well, if governments only authority regarding money is to insure honesty, and the only function of banks is to supervise the investment of money entrusted to them by savers, how the hell would money get created and circulated in the economy without government and banks? Since the constitution says:

"No State shall, ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in payment of Debts; ...

 

[hakr100]

Thus, the Federal Reserve is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Perhaps you'd like to post your C.V. here, so we'll know you are educationally and experiently qualified to make such pronouncements on matters Constitutional.

 

[WAdude]

8th grade text book, online constitution websites, and central bank quotes.

And anyways, the best thing about the whole thing is that there is no need for income tax to pay for the interest rate that comes with the Federal Reserves dollar.

 

[WAdude]

Everybody wins, its constitutional, less debt, less economic crashes, less government control, less power to the banks. And think, it took 200 years for America to get to a 1 trillion dollar debt working on that system. In less than a 100 years, and were in 13 trillion dollars debt.

 

[Isthmus]

WAdude, since you are saying that you didn't research enough, perhaps you should look up the following:

- History of US Central Banks - the fed is only the latest one and all have had monetary regulatory authority from the begining (the first bank established by the first congress)

- Look up the case: McCulloch v. Maryland
- Look up the case: Milam v. United States
- Look Up the Case: United States v. Jerome Daily
- Look up the case: Pfluger v. Bernanke
- And look up the Supreme Court's decisions regarding the printing of paper legal tender and congress' ability to define what constitutes legal tender in the United States. you can start by a group of rulings commonly referred to as the "Legal Tender Cases".

Focus on the minutes of the cases and the judges opinions.

 

[WAdude]

WAdude, since you are saying that you didn't research enough, perhaps you should look up the following:

- History of US Central Banks - the fed is only the latest one and all have had monetary regulatory authority from the begining (the first bank established by the first congress)

- Look up the case: McCulloch v. Maryland
- Look up the case: Milam v. United States
- Look Up the Case: United States v. Jerome Daily
- Look up the case: Pfluger v. Bernanke
- And look up the Supreme Court's decisions regarding the printing of paper legal tender and congress' ability to define what constitutes legal tender in the United States. you can start by a group of rulings commonly referred to as the "Legal Tender Cases".

Focus on the minutes of the cases and the judges opinions.

I haven't researched what you gave me yet, but I'd like to know what you think about it, The Federal Reserve?

 

[Isthmus]

I haven't researched what you gave me yet, but I'd like to know what you think about it, The Federal Reserve?

I'm not sure what you are asking. Do you want to know what I think about their structure, about their system about their purpose, about their role in the economy? Be more specific please.

 

[WAdude]

I'm not sure what you are asking. Do you want to know what I think about their structure, about their system about their purpose, about their role in the economy? Be more specific please.

Pretty much what you said (their structure, about their system about their purpose, about their role in the economy), and is it ok legally/ constitutionally? Is it better than the coinage act?

 

[WAdude]

And remember, Congress, at no point, had any constitutional authority to create the Federal Reserve, and give over their powers to the Fed to print, coin, or even set the standard or value on the US Dollar, since its value is based on inflation rather than a standard value as the constitution says:

"The Congress shall have Power......To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights Measures;"



And since the Fed isnt even open to an Independent audit, because the Dodd bill completely eliminated legislation to audit the Federal Reserve, which already passed in the House.

 

[byteware]

...so only congress, not the Federal Reserve, should coin money and its value, not some private central bank that loans it to our government with an interest attached to every penny....

I suppose you expect Congress to recess every day at a certain time so that they can go man the presses to make the money? Or do you expect them to have someone else do it?

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

...meaning that only gold and silver should be used as a currency, not paper, because as we know, for every US Dollar printed, there is an interest that the Federal Reserve (a private bank) puts on it. Rather than gold, that has no interest rate, and has a standard and solid value that is garunteed/set, or supposed to be garunteed/set, by congress.

You may notice that this applies to STATES, not the Federal Government.

So I dont get it, people notice many things unconstitutional, why is it that we let a Federal Reserve (thats not even federal, but privately owned) be?

Because nothing you've stated makes it unconstitutional.

What do yall think, is the Federal Reserve good or bad, or what?

Unfortunately, both. They do good. They do bad. Like most political topics it is far from a black and white issue.

 

[byteware]

Perhaps you'd like to post your C.V. here, so we'll know you are educationally and experiently qualified to make such pronouncements on matters Constitutional.

While, I disagree with him on his conclusions, Ad hominem attacks tend to mean that you cannot come up with a rational argument, so you must resort to attacking the person presenting the argument.

He did ask for your thoughts, and all you've done is attack HIM.

 

[hakr100]

While, I disagree with him on his conclusions, Ad hominem attacks tend to mean that you cannot come up with a rational argument, so you must resort to attacking the person presenting the argument.

He did ask for your thoughts, and all you've done is attack HIM.

Asking someone for their qualifications to make pronouncements on arcane sections of Constitutional and federal law is attacking?

 

[byteware]

Asking someone for their qualifications to make pronouncements on arcane sections of Constitutional and federal law is attacking?

If his argument is sound, then his qualifications are irrelevant. If his argument is not sound, being Dean of Constitutional Law at Harvard would be irrelevant.

He asked you about his argument, what you thought, and if he was right or wrong.

You chose to check his credentials, hoping that one question alone would discredit his argument.

That's ad Hominem.

Edited to add: And it's disrespectful to him and everyone else taking part in this discussion.

 

[hakr100]

If his argument is sound, then his qualifications are irrelevant. If his argument is not sound, being Dean of Constitutional Law at Harvard would be irrelevant.

He asked you about his argument, what you thought, and if he was right or wrong.

So, if someone here presented an argument that slavery should be reimposed on black people, I should debate the validity of his points rather than just tell him he is full of you-know-what and simply dismiss his posit?

In re: the original post, I don't think the argument is worthy of serious consideration. It is an issue settled long ago.

 

[Isthmus]

Pretty much what you said (their structure, about their system about their purpose, about their role in the economy), and is it ok legally/ constitutionally? Is it better than the coinage act?

boy this one is a big meatball and we could go all day here. Here is what I can tell you, and what I agree with. The US constitution, and the us legal system is not a roman-style "letter of the law" which tends to be more static and in which freedoms, authorities and restrictions have to be spelled out explicitely in order to be legally binding. The US system, which is based largely on english common law, intentionally allows for challenge and review of new and existing legislation, at pretty much every level. This means that laws are open to interpretation, challenge and review, and that the process allows them to remain adaptable over time, as the situations they are mean to cover evolve. Our constitution embodies this practice and in many ways this is the reason why it is often referred to as a living document. Case law since the founding of this country has supported the practice and rights of congress to create a central bank. Time and time again there have been challenges of various sorts to aeverything from congresses right to print paper money, their right to remove precious metals as the standard backing for currency, to their right to delegate authority over the running of a central bank, and to the very existence of such institutions. Consistently over the past couple of hundred years, our nation's supreme court, regardless of it's political composition, has upheld the rights of congress to do all of the things mentioned above and has quite specifically rejected the notion that citizens somehow have the right to not recognize those authorities (and do things like creating their own currency or refusing to pay taxes). These arguments have not been capricious or made by a single court leaning to one ideological extreme or the other. They have been based on a lot of prior precedent over the course of a very long time, so yes I am in agreement that the Federal reserve system has a very real legal authority to exist and do what they do.

That said, this does not mean that the system should not necessarily be open to periodic review or that reforming the federal reserve system should not be considered or is ever undesirable. Doo keep in mind, the too much meddling with the functioning of a central bank and ot's processes tends to have negative effects on economies and/or currency valuations, so there are strong arguments for keeping the restructuring of central banking institutions gradual and limited. These days relative stability within a target performance range is generally preferable than specific artificial valuation targets.

IMHO there are flaws within the system (eg. excessive power of the NY fed governor, the excessive influence of wall street banking institutions, the very limited tools that the fed has to direct spending within the economy or affect performance, etc.), and perhaps some review is in order. This however does not mean that the system is ineffectual or fundamentally flawed.

I hope that helps answer your question. let me know if it doesn't.

 

[byteware]

So, if someone here presented an argument that slavery should be reimposed on black people, I should debate the validity of his points rather than just tell him he is full of you-know-what and simply dismiss his posit?

Which do you think is more effective, telling someone they are full of "you-know-what", or proving that they are?

In re: the original post, I don't think the argument is worthy of serious consideration. It is an issue settled long ago.

So was segregation once. Times change and many issues that were settled are reconsidered.

 

[hakr100]

Which do you think is more effective, telling someone they are full of "you-know-what", or proving that they are?



So was segregation once. Times change and many issues that were settled are reconsidered.

1. I see no reason to argue against certain off-the-wall positions and by doing so, give them credence.


2. Actually, segregation was an issue left unsettled.


There's no valid argument to dump the fed.

 

[Isthmus]

1. I see no reason to argue against certain off-the-wall positions and by doing so, give them credence.

2. Actually, segregation was an issue left unsettled.

There's no valid argument to dump the fed.

I understand where you are coming from. Willful ignorance can be extremely frustrating. That said, personally I prefer the approach of responding by pointing someone in the direction of facts and knowledge and encourage them to investigate them. at least that way if they want to argue their point they will be doing it from a point of view of knowledge (one would hope) and will have to hold their own opinions to a similar standard. It doesn't work with everyone, but generally it leads to a more beneficial discussion.

 

[byteware]

1. I see no reason to argue against certain off-the-wall positions and by doing so, give them credence.


2. Actually, segregation was an issue left unsettled.


There's no valid argument to dump the fed.

1. By resorting to Ad Hominem attacks, you give GREAT credence to a position, as it is an indication that you CANNOT refute the argument.

2. Segregation was settled, see Brown v Board of Education.