Well, that is why I called it a rant.
But I thought the Franklink and other quotes were very pertinent, and so left the rest of the rant in.
I don't know where it came from, someone posted it to the usenet. I have seen this site referenced a lot:
themoneymasters.com
Is LaRouche a goldster?
I am sorry I haven't completed my research yet. I am stuck on what this really means:
William P.G. Harding, Governor of the Federal Reserve Board stated in a
speech delivered before the Washington Chamber of Commerce in1921, :
"From a legal standpoint these banks are private corporations, organized
under a special act of Congress, namely, the Federal Reserve Act. They
are not in the strict sense of the word Government banks." This "special
act" by Congress in 1913 is in direct violation of 16 Corpus Juris
Secundum, Section 141, which states that Congress cannot delegate or
sign over its authority to any individual, corporation or foreign
nation. Yet that's exactly what occurred in December of1913 by a select
group of individuals in the U.S. Congress. That "special act" has
become the biggest fraud in the history of this country.
I got this response from another thread, but haven't pursued the loose ends(if there are any). I want to see what the encyclopedia is and if it has any authority and why a predecessor to Greenspan would say it has authority. And of course check out some more court cases. I think less than 1% of the people know that the fed is private, let only that a private group of bankers determine growth rates in America. Why?
"This "special act" by Congress in 1913 is in direct violation of 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Section 141", allegedly said William P.G. Harding, not the President Harding.
Not a lawyer, either. Corpus Juris Secundum is a legal encyclopedia, a compendium of case law from many jurisdictions, a kind of mish-mash that is useful for legal research but "no controlling legal authority," as Gore liked to say.-g-
The arbiter of this dispute would be the United States Supreme Court. So what is the question?
Can Congress delegate "its authority" to any individual, corporation or foreign nation?
Question 1 - authority to do what? What is it that Congress is supposed to have delegated?
Question 2 - did Congress in fact delegate what it is alleged to have delegated?
Question 3 - if so, can Congress do that?
_______________________________
I am going to assume that what Congress is alleged to have delegated is the power "To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
U.S. Constitution U.S. Con. Art. 1, § 8 (1789)"
_______________________________
I am not going to get into the question of whether printing paper money violates the Constitution, which is a side issue. There is no question but that the United States coins and prints its own currency, I hope. If so, please take the time to visit Washington and you can watch the printing presses, free of charge.
We appear to be discussing whether Congress has delegated to the Federal Reserve their power to "regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin." Right? If so, let's proceed.
_______________________________
How does Congress act? Congress writes laws. Who carries out the laws? The Executive branch, which includes not only the President, but the Executive agencies, under the President's supervision.
For example, who actually prints and coins the money? The Department of Treasury, under the supervision of the President, according to specifications provided by Congress.
To make it painfully obvious, you wouldn't expect the Senators and Congressmen to actually sit around coining the money, right?
So there's no problem involved in delegating the authority to "coin money and regulate the value thereof and of foreign money" to the Department of the Treasury, under guidelines established by Congress, right?
The problem isn't the Treasury, it's the allegedly private banks.
____________________________
According to the United States Supreme Court, Federal Reserve banks are not analogous to private corporations, but rather are "plainly and predominantly fiscal arms of the federal government" with interests "indistinguishable from those of the sovereign."
ARKANSAS v. FARM CREDIT SERVS., 520 U.S. 821, 830 (1997)
The United States Supreme Court considers the Federal Reserve system a federal banking system, set up by Congress, to serve a federal purpose.
>>During and after the Civil War a federal banking system reemerged. Moved in part by war-related financing needs, Treasury Secretary (later Chief Justice) Salmon P. Chase proposed, and Congress enacted, laws providing for federally chartered banks, Act of Feb. 20, 1863, ch. 43, 12 Stat. 655, and encouraging state banks to obtain federal charters. Act of June 3, 1864, ch. 106, 13 Stat. 99 (only federally chartered banks can issue national currency). See also Veazie v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533 (1869) (opinion of Chase, C. J.) (upholding constitutionality of federal taxation of state banks). Just before World War I, Congress created the federal reserve system. Act of Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251. After that war, it created several federal banking agencies with regulatory authority over both federal and state banks. Act of June 16, 1933, ch. 89, 48 Stat. 162. And in 1933, it provided for the federal chartering of savings banks. Act of June 13, 1933, ch. 62, 48 Stat. 128.<<
ATHERTON v. FDIC, 519 U.S. 213, 222 (1997)
>> The Federal Reserve Act provides that a national bank "may continue hereafter as heretofore to receive time and savings deposits and to pay interest on the same, but the rate of interest which such association may pay upon such time deposits or upon savings or other deposits shall not exceed the maximum rate authorized by law to be paid upon such deposits by State banks or trust companies [Page 376] organized under the laws of the State in which such association is located." 2 The Act authorizes the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to make necessary rules and regulations, 3 which the Board has done by defining such terms as "time deposits" and "savings deposits." 4 The National Bank Act authorizes national banks to receive deposits without qualification or limitation, and it provides that they shall possess "all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking; by discounting and negotiating promissory notes, drafts, bills of exchange, and other evidences of debt; by receiving deposits; by buying and selling exchange, coin, and bullion; by loaning money on personal security; and by obtaining, issuing, and circulating notes according to the provisions of this chapter." 5<<
FRANKLIN NAT. BANK v. NEW YORK, 347 U.S. 373, 375-376 (1954)
There is no question that Congress has delegated authority to the Federal Reserve Board - as an expert agency, "to fill statutory interstices."
>>These changes reflect recognition that interbank disputes arising out of the check payment system may be more complex than those involving banks and depositors; such disputes, therefore, may warrant regulatory standards, set by an expert agency, to fill statutory interstices. Thus, in subsection (f), Congress delegated to the Federal Reserve Board authority to establish rules allocating among depository institutions "the risks of loss and liability" relating to the payment and collection of checks. 12 U.S.C. § 4010(f). Having conferred this authority on the Board, Congress sensibly consolidated in subsection (f) aspects of § 4010 that relate to interbank disputes - liability limits as well as rulemaking authority.
BANK ONE CHICAGO v. MIDWEST BANK & TRUST, 516 U.S. 264, 273 (1996)<<
Setting up an expert agency to make rules that fill statutory interstices is not at all uncommon, and I doubt you'd find anyone on the United States Supreme Court who found that to be an improper delegation of Congressional power. |
