So, far too often other threads get derailed on the subject of the Constitution.
Here's an official thread to discuss Constitutional issues, incuding interpretation, scope, as well as specific arguments.
This should help keep the other threads clean.
Brought from other thread: http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1360545/3#bbspost24978321_post_text
At 2/13/14 06:09 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: This has nothing to do with monetary police.
Cite links to your sources.
Article 1 Section 8
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof"
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers"
So, you are trying to argue severe limitations on this. So I ask you, what exactly do these lines mean?
Excellent topic Camaro. I'm also going to hijack the topic a little to talk about economic theory and history, because it really does go hand and hand with the Consitution.
First off, I'm going to remind everybody for like the 50th time now, the Federal Resevrve does not print money. The Treausry does this, so yes in fact the government prints the money, not the central bank. In some ways, this seeks to emulate the idea of separation of powers, in this case a separation between monetary and fiscal policy. Why? Because simply put, giving the government the power of monetary policy is asking for economic abuse. For example, if the government could in theory control monetary policy a president could flood the market with money to make goods relatively cheap and poetically boost the economy right before an election. Long story short, we want to have a second group whose main incentive is not political gain. That's similarly why the Fed can freely control the amount of money in the market but can't control the totally amount of money: otherwise the central bank could effectively print off money to pay its debts. Now you may be wondering why the government doesn't do this already, and the reason is a) if the government were to do that the money would never reach the market because the Fed would immediately regulate such a large inflow of liquidity, and b) seignorage, which is effectively an inflation tax that we all pay for, and this could lead to hyperinflation and a great big load of other nasty things I'm not going to get into now.
So long story short, the Fed exists as the economic experts. I mean, look at Congress: do you think any of them have spent time analyzing markets and mathematical models? No: they wouldn't know the difference between the Phillips curve and a Phillips screwdriver. We have the smart people running the Fed for a reason: so the economy doesn't go crashing down in a horrible blaze of misery.
New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me
"Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams
At 2/13/14 07:09 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Brought from other thread: http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1360545/3#bbspost24978321_post_text
At 2/13/14 06:09 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: This has nothing to do with monetary police.Cite links to your sources.US Constitution
Article 1 Section 8
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof"
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers"
So, you are trying to argue severe limitations on this. So I ask you, what exactly do these lines mean?
So the Constitution is Bullshit. The Fed is Bullshit and the Government will continue to pass laws as they see fit without putting it to a vote. The Constitution mandates that only congress has the power to Mint and regulate money then what the hell is the point of having a Constitution if they keep dancing around the rules by way of "The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." ? There was good reason why Congress was supposed to follow the original Constitution ratified by the four fathers. Still the words at the end of section 8 doesn't say that Congress has the power to outsource the Minting and regulation of money. Fuck democracy right !
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
At 2/13/14 10:38 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There is a lot more wiggle room contained in those words than many give them credit for. Such as the lack of any basement to the right, or any metes or bounds to the right. Technically, resticting arms to bronze-era swords, spears, axes, and slings would technically retain the right to bear arms well and intact. Seeing as those are arms, and you would then have the right to bear them, thus leaing a ban on every other weapon in line with the bare bones text of the amendment.
At 2/13/14 10:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 2/13/14 10:38 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Amendment IIThere is a lot more wiggle room contained in those words ....
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That's the fallacy contained within written and spoken word.
At 2/13/14 11:54 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: First amendment only applies to communication used during the 18th century. Sorry guys, but it looks like we're violating the constitution by post here. Back to quill and ink by candle light for this one.
If you're reading it ultra-literally, there is actually no room for quill and feather writing. It mentions the press and speech only. This limits it to spoken word and pressed documents only.
At 2/13/14 07:33 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: There was good reason why Congress was supposed to follow the original Constitution ratified by the four fathers.
The forefathers included the Necessary and Proper clause. So they're following pretty honestly. Oh, and numerous of the forefathers expressly wanted a Federal Bank.
Still the words at the end of section 8 doesn't say that Congress has the power to outsource the Minting and regulation of money. Fuck democracy right !
The plain meaning of the necessary an dproper clause includes it. Could you point to specific text that doesn't allow it? You're not arguing that the reading is improper. You're arguing that the reading isn't even valid. You can go far on the former argument, you will go nowhere on the latter.
If you're going to argue with the heavyweights, don't call their readings unfound, call them misguided. If you don't the the Fed is Necessary or Proper, say it. Don't act like a Tea Party nut and claim that the sky isn't blue because you don't want it to be.
At 2/14/14 12:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
The forefathers included the Necessary and Proper clause. So they're following pretty honestly. Oh, and numerous of the forefathers expressly wanted a Federal Bank.
I don't have to take your word for it. It also does not say that Congress can mess with the money supply as they see fit. You must understand that if congress can change the rules that they are supposed to uphold and abide by then the system is faulty especially the fact that amendments to the constitution do not even go to vote by the Citizens. The Fed is no good and this is well documented.
The plain meaning of the necessary an dproper clause includes it.
For this clause to be used in an unbiased and effective manor then it would need to go to vote to determine weather or not the people want to amend parts or all of their Constitution. This is the down fall of a representative democratic republic as it can lend a nation over to absolute control in the hands of a few cause really lets be honest you only have 12 to 15 votes in your life time and this is not nearly effective or nearly participatory enough.
Could you point to specific text that doesn't allow it? You're not arguing that the reading is improper. You're arguing that the reading isn't even valid. You can go far on the former argument, you will go nowhere on the latter.
Sad that the people have no choice in this matter. Your republic sucks cause the people have absolutely no control over anything that happens in Government or monetary policy.
If you're going to argue with the heavyweights, don't call their readings unfound, call them misguided. If you don't the the Fed is Necessary or Proper, say it.
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" I understand there are people on these forums that are working with the US Government to try and sway people's opinions and discredit the fact that America is a failing hegemony. Heck I would interject and state that you would argue that a hegemony is a good thing. Back on about the Constitution I would say that it is not effective because it is not controlled by what the people want rather it ultimately put's absolute power into the hands of a few due to this clause you speak of.
“We have about 60% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its’ population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease to talk about such vague and unreal objectives as human rights, the raising of living standards and democratisation. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”
By some American asshole named George F. Kennan
At 2/14/14 01:23 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: I don't have to take your word for it. It also does not say that Congress can mess with the money supply as they see fit. You must understand that if congress can change the rules that they are supposed to uphold and abide by then the system is faulty
Congress cannot just simply pass amendments all over the place, it is very very difficult see; ERA. And it didn't change the rules they were supposed to uphold, the Fed is constitutional, they didn't need an amendment to make it so and they don't have to make one.
especially the fact that amendments to the constitution do not even go to vote by the Citizens.
This was done intentionally by the Founding Fathers because the citizens may get into a frenzy and begin restricting rights, thus the state governments which would be made up of more intellectual people would slow that down and grind such movements to a halt so that they could be discussed in more detail before doing something people will regret. It was to avoid "mobacracy", the type that killed Socrates.
:The Fed is no good and this is well documented.
Oh no Ron Paul! What a credible source.
For this clause to be used in an unbiased and effective manor then it would need to go to vote to determine weather or not the people want to amend parts or all of their Constitution.
No that is not what it means at all. The clause says Congress can do whatever is "necessary and proper" to enforce the powers it was given. Violating the Constitution so that the public can amend it is not in any way "necessary and proper".
This is the down fall of a representative democratic republic as it can lend a nation over to absolute control in the hands of a few cause really lets be honest you only have 12 to 15 votes in your life time and this is not nearly effective or nearly participatory enough.
You have it the other way around. Ever since 1789 the country has been becoming MORE Democratic; not less. Senators used to be elected by state legislatures, now they're elected by popular vote, House Leaders used to have near absolute control over their members, now they can't even get them to stop the government from shutting down, Committee's used to be nepotistic and secretive, now they're weakened and open.
Sad that the people have no choice in this matter. Your republic sucks cause the people have absolutely no control over anything that happens in Government or monetary policy.
That's a good thing, most people do not have the knowledge to create effective legislation and if they had control over monetary policy we'd be seeing either deflation or hyperinflation by the end of the day.
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" I understand there are people on these forums that are working with the US Government to try and sway people's opinions and discredit the fact that America is a failing hegemony. Heck I would interject and state that you would argue that a hegemony is a good thing.
No we're not at all, we're just asking for facts you can point too to prove your position to which you just respond with blind rhetoric.
Back on about the Constitution I would say that it is not effective because it is not controlled by what the people want rather it ultimately put's absolute power into the hands of a few due to this clause you speak of.
“We have about 60% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its’ population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease to talk about such vague and unreal objectives as human rights, the raising of living standards and democratisation. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”
By some American asshole named George F. Kennan
That's back in the 60's, since then the US share of wealth has decreased alot and countries are much more wealthy than they were before. Countries like Botswana now have a GDP on the level of 1960's America, disease has been nearly eradicated in many developing countries etc. etc. George F. Kennan wasn't really that influential, he made the containment policy but his later efforts like going against the War in Vietnam didn't make him that popular amongst that many people. He's sort of like Oliver North, important at one point but later on just a right wing pundit.
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
At 2/14/14 01:23 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: It also does not say that Congress can mess with the money supply as they see fit.
Where does it say that?
You must understand that if congress can change the rules that they are supposed to uphold and abide by then the system is faulty especially the fact that amendments to the constitution do not even go to vote by the Citizens.
Where does it say that?
For this clause to be used in an unbiased and effective manor then it would need to go to vote to determine weather or not the people want to amend parts or all of their Constitution. This is the down fall of a representative democratic republic as it can lend a nation over to absolute control in the hands of a few cause really lets be honest you only have 12 to 15 votes in your life time and this is not nearly effective or nearly participatory enough.
Are you trying to say that the necessary and proper clause allows Congress to actively change the Constitution?
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely"
Yadda yadda yadda.
Please point me to the exact langauge that completely prohibits the use of the Fed. That's ALL you have to do.
At 2/14/14 04:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 2/14/14 01:23 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: It also does not say that Congress can mess with the money supply as they see fit.Where does it say that?
That's why I said it does not say.
You must understand that if congress can change the rules that they are supposed to uphold and abide by then the system is faulty especially the fact that amendments to the constitution do not even go to vote by the Citizens.Where does it say that?
What was that clause we are debating again ?
For this clause to be used in an unbiased and effective manor then it would need to go to vote to determine weather or not the people want to amend parts or all of their Constitution. This is the down fall of a representative democratic republic as it can lend a nation over to absolute control in the hands of a few cause really lets be honest you only have 12 to 15 votes in your life time and this is not nearly effective or nearly participatory enough.Are you trying to say that the necessary and proper clause allows Congress to actively change the Constitution?
Oh there's that clause we are debating.
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely"Yadda yadda yadda.
Please point me to the exact langauge that completely prohibits the use of the Fed. That's ALL you have to do.
Does the Constitution state that Congress has the power to mint and regulate the money supply or does the Constitution state that the Federal Reserve and or other institution/s have the power to control and manipulate the money supply ? If Congress concluded that they must outsource for whatever reason/s the Minting and regulation of the money supply then an amendment to Section 8 of the Constitution would have had to have been made.
At 2/13/14 10:38 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I like how you have to encourage us to ignore the entire first clause of the amendment to make your point.
At 2/14/14 04:50 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: That's why I said it does not say.
I have pointed to language that by its basic meaning allows it. Please point to language that actively limits this.
Oh there's that clause we are debating.
Tell me what you think the necessary and proper clause means.
Does the Constitution state that Congress has the power to mint and regulate the money supply or does the Constitution state that the Federal Reserve and or other institution/s have the power to control and manipulate the money supply ? If Congress concluded that they must outsource for whatever reason/s the Minting and regulation of the money supply then an amendment to Section 8 of the Constitution would have had to have been made.
It says that Congress has the power to coin money. Then it goes on to say that Congress can do whatever they feel nessecary and proper to carry out its duties, such as coining money. Seeing as Congress is a group of politicians, it seems pretty darn necessary and very proper to contract such duties out to a private organization that specializes in money. (Oh, and FYI, the Treasury actually mints the money, all the Fed does is loan money to and hold money for the government.)
At 2/14/14 05:44 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 2/14/14 04:50 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: That's why I said it does not say.I have pointed to language that by its basic meaning allows it. Please point to language that actively limits this.
That would make it an amendment to the constitution then. Problem is no such amendment exists. What;s the point of a rule when another is made specifically to contravene it.
Oh there's that clause we are debating.Tell me what you think the necessary and proper clause means.
To contravene a Law anyway your rulers deem fit if and when they deem it necessary. A loophole if you will.
At 2/13/14 07:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote: So, far too often other threads get derailed on the subject of the Constitution.
Here's an official thread to discuss Constitutional issues, incuding interpretation, scope, as well as specific arguments.
This should help keep the other threads clean.
First off, the "papa spank" bit:
You are NOT a moderator! You are NOT to be making "official" topics. We didn't empower you to do that, you didn't ask for my permission, and I bet if I check around I'll find you didn't ask any other mods either. Official topics are done by STAFF when STAFF determine there is an issue within a forum (usually this one to be honest) where there is too many threads with similar discussion (see "official" bush, and my own "official" atheism vs. theism). USERS do NOT get to make that determination. We welcome your feedback on such issues (I certainly do anyway), and we are here to make your forum experience better, but we are the law givers, not you. You also do NOT have the right to "move things from other threads" WE decide that. By rights I should be locking this, but I'm not going to.
Second, the "good idea" bit:
The reason I'm not locking this is two fold: 1. I think this is actually a good and useful idea, therefore it gets my back door sanction despite it's illegal and ill-advised creation. 2. You are an otherwise good, and solid user and I am sure we can trust you to be a good caretaker here and alert us if mods are needed to take care of a problem.
This is to serve as notice for both Cam and anyone who might be thinking about going the same route and making this a trend: Don't, it's illegal, it will get deleted and if someone keeps repeatedly doing it you're getting banned under the "backseat modding" rule. I'm making an exception in this ONE and ONLY case because I think this can be a wonderful resource if we all work together to make it so.
Carry on.
You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.
At 2/14/14 06:02 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: That would make it an amendment to the constitution then. Problem is no such amendment exists. What;s the point of a rule when another is made specifically to contravene it.
Wait wait, a clause of the original Constitution with no amendments, is an amendment to you. So basically, anything you don't like is illegal?
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
At 2/14/14 10:27 PM, Warforger wrote: Wait wait, a clause of the original Constitution with no amendments, is an amendment to you. So basically, anything you don't like is illegal?
In fairness, I THINK the issue is he isn't understanding the WHY and the clear INTENT of such a clause (that the founders knew they needed a certain elasticity and flexibility in the document since they were trying to craft something that would last forever and guide this country forever and since they weren't able to forsee every problem in "forever" they would need a way for future leaders to edit the government in such a way that it could handle that). Well, that and leanlifter seems to not trust any government simply because it is government so therefore anything that doesn't black and white say what their powers are and aren't, it's automatically bad and going to be used in a nefarious way. That's my take anyway, I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong.
You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.
At 2/14/14 06:02 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: That would make it an amendment to the constitution then. Problem is no such amendment exists. What;s the point of a rule when another is made specifically to contravene it.
What amendment? The necessary and proper clause was part of the original constitution. It doesn't allow Congress to amend anything in the Constitution.
To contravene a Law anyway your rulers deem fit if and when they deem it necessary. A loophole if you will.
So you think the Congress members themselves should be out minting coins in accordance with the Constitution? Or, do you think Congress should have some power to get their laws into effect without having to do the leg work themselves?
At 2/15/14 10:09 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
To contravene a Law anyway your rulers deem fit if and when they deem it necessary. A loophole if you will.So you think the Congress members themselves should be out minting coins in accordance with the Constitution? Or, do you think Congress should have some power to get their laws into effect without having to do the leg work themselves?
Money should be out of politics completely. Loopholes should be out of Politics completely. Dogma and religion need to be out of Politics completely. A tight moral and ethical code must be the corner stone to a truly great nation.
So I don't see anywhere in the constitution where we cant have the federal reserve. And quite honestly I dont know much on the subject. Where exactly in the language does it say we can have something like the federal reserve?
At 2/15/14 04:48 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: So I don't see anywhere in the constitution where we cant have the federal reserve. And quite honestly I dont know much on the subject. Where exactly in the language does it say we can have something like the federal reserve?
I can easily see where people have Constitutional trouble with it. They see the use of a private organization instead of a government agency having any control over the government's money, even just in the form of holding and loaning the government money, as neither necessary nor proper to the execution of any of the Article 8 enumerated power.
My beef with leanlifter, is not that he claims this, rather that he states there is a definitive limit, of which clearly does not exist. The limit that exists is very much one of interpretation, and here it boils down to a very common legal conundrum: that of "reasonable minds may differ." Here, two mutually exclusive, yet equally valid interpretations can be made from the same text, and what prevails will be that which was though of by the most people for long enough to become precedent.
That same conundrum also exists in the base reading of the 2nd Amendment.
At 2/15/14 05:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I can easily see where people have Constitutional trouble with it. They see the use of a private organization instead of a government agency having any control over the government's money, even just in the form of holding and loaning the government money, as neither necessary nor proper to the execution of any of the Article 8 enumerated power.
blah blah, all I asked for was reasons on both sides of the argument (dumbed down) to where I can understand because when I google searched all I get is bullshit Ron Paul articles and rhetoric, I just want a bit of a explanation and a nudge in the right direction to the point where I can do make my own opinion o the subject after doing some studying
At 2/15/14 06:38 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:At 2/15/14 05:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I can easily see where people have Constitutional trouble with it. They see the use of a private organization instead of a government agency having any control over the government's money, even just in the form of holding and loaning the government money, as neither necessary nor proper to the execution of any of the Article 8 enumerated power.blah blah, all I asked for was reasons on both sides of the argument (dumbed down) to where I can understand because when I google searched all I get is bullshit Ron Paul articles and rhetoric, I just want a bit of a explanation and a nudge in the right direction to the point where I can do make my own opinion o the subject after doing some studying
The constitution includes a loophole clause which technically enables Congress to do whatever they deem necessary and even make the rules as they go along type of thing. Said clause is at the end of Section 8 of the Constitution. Weather it's morally, ethically or financially sound is up for debate. Google why the Federal reserve is corrupt and you will find lots of information about how it screwed things up and made a few people rich and devalued currency and cause hyper inflation etc etc etc.
At 2/15/14 06:38 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: blah blah, all I asked for was reasons on both sides of the argument (dumbed down) to where I can understand because when I google searched all I get is bullshit Ron Paul articles and rhetoric, I just want a bit of a explanation and a nudge in the right direction to the point where I can do make my own opinion o the subject after doing some studying
I think I actually misread your comment (I saw a "can" as "can't").
The wikipedia article on the necessary and proper clause may help. It even has a little chunk directly on the national bank.
At 2/15/14 07:06 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: The constitution includes a loophole clause which technically enables Congress to do whatever they deem necessary and even make the rules as they go along type of thing.
You're missing the major part of the necessary and proper clause. It ties to, and ONLY to, the powers Congress has. Congress cannot use the necessary and proper clause to pardon someone, or appoint supereme court justices, or to dictate state medical policy, or state police power.
What the necessary and proper clause does is give Congress the felxibility and tool necessary to crry out the list of enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8. You can argue on specific points between what you think is or is not necessary and proper, and that's valid, but claimi ng the clause is a ticket to do whatever it wants is wrong.
Heck, if you knew what you were talking about, you'd be railing against the commerce clause or the tax and spend clause instead, as they provide far more plenary power to Congress than the necessary and Proper clause does.
Think about each and every day you see an article about how ridiculous Congress is due to political impasses. Now picture that, but instead of an institution that passes legislation, you're dealing with an institution that enacts monetary policy. The founders saw the volatility and conflict of interest a mile away, which is why the Fed is officially "removed" from federal politiking.
At 2/15/14 10:54 PM, Feoric wrote: Think about each and every day you see an article about how ridiculous Congress is due to political impasses. Now picture that, but instead of an institution that passes legislation, you're dealing with an institution that enacts monetary policy. The founders saw the volatility and conflict of interest a mile away, which is why the Fed is officially "removed" from federal politiking.
How about we put it this way:
You know all those crazy abuses of power we've seen Congress use, even though they have no idea what's going on? Now imagine them getting their grubby power-hungry hands on the day-to-day aspects economy and tell me you think that's better than having the people who've studied markets for most of their lives run the day-to-day. Who has those Econ PhDs again? That's right, not Congress.
Long story short, get the government's grubby little hands away from the economy. If anything this is free market aspect that we don't have monetary policy and fiscal policy be the same. This is a free market ideal that we've adopt because it keeps power away from those who could abuse it the most to the most people's misfortunes.
Now, you can't blame the people at the Fed for making money off of this. Come on, if you study this type of thing for living you should be naturally able to be smart with your money. There's no such thing as a poor economists; you study markets for a living. Also, let's put it this way: say you are a pilot on a commercial airline. You see all of a sudden that the plane is going to crash for some awful reason beyond anybody's control. Are you going to warn everybody else on the plane? Of course, that's the morally and ethically the right thing to do. But before that, are you going to make sure you have a parachute? Damn straight, and no one would blame for looking and trying to find one. All things considering we all are in the same boat together, but let's not forget first and foremost we are talking about money and wealth here, so when anybody sees that they are about to lose a bunch of money and they can do something not to lose their wealth, you can bet your ass that they're going to try not lose their wealth in an act of self-preseravation. That's human nature, and unless you're going to change that (which you won't) this is how the system's going to work.
New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me
"Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams
At 2/15/14 04:48 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: So I don't see anywhere in the constitution where we cant have the federal reserve. And quite honestly I dont know much on the subject. Where exactly in the language does it say we can have something like the federal reserve?
The Constitution gives Congress the explicit power to coin money and set its value, aka issue fiat money. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 officially delegated these powers to the Federal Reserve system:
"The Federal Reserve System is considered to be an independent central bank. It is so, however, only in the sense that its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive branch of government. The entire System is subject to oversight by the U.S. Congress because the Constitution gives to the Congress the power to coin money and set its value -- a power that, in the 1913 act, the Congress itself delegated to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve works within the framework of the overall objectives of economic policy established by the government, and thus the description of the System as “independent within the government” is more accurate." (p.32)
