Quote:
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION STATES THAT CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO COIN (CREATE) MONEY AND REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF. (Did you not read this the first time?? I agree, retyping is a drag.)
IN 1935 THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT CONGRESS CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATE ITS POWER TO ANOTHER GROUP.
That’s incorrect. It claims that congress can not transfer ‘essential legislative functions’ to other groups. The courts have NEVER held that the creation of the federal reserve or the functions that the federal reserve serves exceeds congressional authority to delegate powers. The courts fully recognize this authority, but have placed limits on it. Here's the full text of the ruling. Read it in context...and not just the piece that you've been fed from conspiracy sites.
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/sc...&invol=495
Until the federal judiciary has concluded that the Federal Reserve exceeds the limits of congressional authority to delegate, claims that the Federal Reserve are 'illegal' or 'unconstitutional' remain little more than personal opinion, carrying no legal weight.
Quote:
Strangely enough, there has never been a Supreme Court decision on the legality or Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve Act.
As I’ve said, the Federal Reserve Act has never been found to be in violation of the constitution. You’re certainly welcome to your opinion, but per the constitution, only the federal judiciary is imbued with the authority to adjudicate issues of constitutional significance. In the absence of federal rulings to the contrary, the Federal Reseve Act is defacto legal and enforceable.
Quote:
After all, I'm not going to write you a book.
No, you’re just going to cut and paste one.
Quote:
First of all, this Act was pushed through Congress on Christmas Holiday and then supposedly passed by the Senate. I don't know where you get your numbers, but by your own numbers you have proven yourself wrong. It takes two thirds of the Senate to pass a bill. According to your numbers, 58% of those that voted passed it. That is not two thirds and thus the Act is unconstitutional. Besides, it takes two thirds of the entire Senate. Twenty two, according to your numbers, weren't even there. They were all off with their families for Christmas, because they were lied to and told that the vote wouldn't take place until after Christmas holiday, just as Wilson was told this.
The house passed it on the 22nd. The senate on the 23rd, and signed by Wilson the same day.
It does NOT take 2/3 or the senate to pass a bill. It takes a simple majority of those present, with 51 members necessary to conduct business.
You’re mistaking a presidential veto override with standard passage of a bill. Or its possible that you mistook a bill for an constitutional amendment, which requires 2/3s. Regardless, your misunderstanding doesn’t create our constitutional crisis. If you believe the constitution requires 2/3 of the senate for a bill to be passed….quote the constitution. I’m sure when you review the actual document, you’ll find you’re quite mistaken.
Quote:
History proved that on that day, the Constitution ceased to be the governing covenant of the American people, and our liberties were handed over to a small group of international bankers.
Um…what liberties. Specifically. For such a melodramatic statement, surely there’s a hefty list of liberties ‘handed over’.
Quote:
Which do you think is a more stable commodity to base your economy on?
As our economy could never grow any faster than our ability to mine gold, thus linking our economy inexorably to the mining industry, I’d say fiat currency. The economic instability that PRECEDED our abandonment of the gold standard (including such gems like…the 1929 stock market crash) would tend to indicate that gold was not the stabilizing influence that you seem to think it is.
Quote:
There is a reason that Fascism, Communism, Monarchy, and totalitarianism are all dependent apon central banking. Every tyrant and despot since its creation has wanted one.
As does virtually every democracy and western capitalist economy. The world, not simply the US, has abandoned the gold standard. The world, not simply the US, has adopted central banking. The world, not simply the US has adopted fiat currency.
Thus, central banking is no more linked to fascism than indoor plumbing or the fruit roll up, as fascism (or communism, or any ism for that matter) is NOT a common denominator its use.
Quote:
There is no money. So, it is taxation of human labor, time, production, etc., slavery, Chattel. Great idea.. We should just go back to 1859 and get ourselves a black person or five. Talk about antiquated.
EVERY form of taxation is based on labor, time, and production. This is true BEFORE the gold standard as AFTER. In what imaginary, made up world is taxation NOT linked to labor, time and production? Describe this wonderful system where taxes just ‘materialize’ without even the need to go out and collect them.
Quote:
You're really stretching here... most of the congressmen and Senators never even read it or were bought off. Check the Congressional record. Several asked to read the bill and were denied access..
Considering your SPECTACULAR lack of understanding of how bills are even passed (2/3ds to pass a bill in the senate?)…I’m going to need a little bit more than your assurances. Evidence please.
Quote:
Yes, and it is was as illegal then as it is today. Like I showed earlier, it was not renewed in 1811 and largely despised by the majority.
Says you. Not the federal courts. The founding fathers THEMSELVES passed the first central bank in the FIRST session of congress, with George Washington himself signing it into law. I know you want to believe that YOU understand the constitution better than the founding fathers, but I’m going to let you in on a little secret.
You don’t.
Central banking is legal, constitutional, and has precedent running back to the VERY first session of congress, passed by the founding fathers themselves. You claiming ‘uh-uh’ really doesn’t carry much weight.
Quote:
The fact of the matter is that the bill was secretly (not even the President knew about it) pushed through while the opposition was on holiday. With no debate and no opposition, it passed the Congress, but even by your numbers never passed the Senate and is thus a void law.
There is NO constitutional requirement that 2/3s of the senate are required to pass a bill. The constitution indicates that the each house can establish their own rules. Per the senate, 51 members of the senate form a quorum, and can conduct business.
Quote:
Quorum - The number of Representatives or Senators that must be present before business can begin. In the House 218 members must be present for a quorum. In the Senate 51 members must be present however, Senate can conduct daily business without a quorum unless it is challenged by a point of order.
www.vote-smart.org/resour...101_02.php
Once those 51 members are present, a simple majority passes a bill. We had 68 of 95 senators present, with a clear majority voting for passage. As the constitution says NOTHING on Senate rules for passage of a bill (only for overriding a presidential veto), how can this vote violate the constitution?
You clearly don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies 