Fiat Empire - Why the Federal Reserve is Unconstitutional

Watch, and discuss....

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/fiat-empire/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'll discuss it, but not until you provide a documentary FOR the Federal Reserve.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I can see a legitinmate argument for the Fed's being unbconstitutional, in that it takes a fiunction that under our constitutional scheme would be considered "executive" and moves it outside the direct, day-to-day control of the President, relying instead on indirect controls by the President (and the authority of Congress to oversee and modiofy its regulatory structure). Many modern constitutions include a fourth "administrative" branch of government to acheieve a similar distinction.

That said, I seriously doubt anyone would win the challenge. The most I would expect a court to say is that the President does in fact have the right to manage the operations of the Fed day-to-day, if he so chooses, nothwithstanding the terms of the Federal Reserve Act. So the Fed wouldn't be abolished as unconstitutional even if the justices agreed with the argument. What would be abolished is the imiginary line that separates them form presidential control.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That one guy has a PHD in Constitution Law or whatever, and HE was saying its unconstitutional.

There is a reason our money system is collapsing, that reason is the Federal Reserve, which is a really a cartel.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The constitution says that the power to "coin money and regulate the value thereof" is with the congress (the legislative branch), not the executive.

Of course, if congress decides to set up an organization to do it for them, it seems far-fetched to me to say that it's unconstitutional.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Federal Reserve was created by Congress and the presidency. So I see nothing unconsitutional about it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree. Most complaints about the constitutionality of the Fed seem to be based around the idea that congress isn't directly controlling the money supply themselves, which seems silly. The same article that gives them the power to coin and regulate money also gives them the power to grant patents on inventions, but I don't hear anyone complaining about how they set up an external patent office to do it for them rather than evaluating patents themselves.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It also says that congress has the power to grant patents...and the the Patent Office is in the executive branch. They have the power "to raise and support armies," "to provide and maintain a navy" and to "establish post offices and post roads," all well understood (especially the first two) to mean tat they pass laws regardig them and then the executive branch executes those laws.

The list of powers in Article I, Section 8 are things that Congress can legislate regarding, no one ever expected that they would run the coin stamping machines themselves. They set up rules governing these things and then they set up agencies by law, and the agencies then execute the law...execute=Executive.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Most arguments against the Fed are in opposition to its *private* banking ownership, and its secrecy.

You could say its partially owned by private banks, and partially controlled by government.

Most central banks in Europe and Canada started out as private bankers to the state, but were eventually taken over completely by the government.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No you cant. Its completely owned by private banks who loan money to the government, at interest. Its a cartel in every sense of the word.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For god's sake, read a f*cking book about banking. And I mean something like an introductory textbook to banking that you might find in a university book store, not something printed by conspiracy theorists.

The Fed rebates all net interest back to the US treasury department. They make no profit on government interest. I know, I know, you found some kooky book/web page/whatever claiming otherwise. I don't care.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Agreed Nasor, I will make it even easier:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#5

End of Light you are being used, but the truth can set you free.

 

Ill take the opinion of someone who has a PhD in Constitutional Law from Harvard over you guys any day...

 

I'd rather he had a law degree. Which a PhD isn't. Saying he has a PhD in in law is like saying he has an M.D. in Astrophysics. He could have some sort of joint degree, like a J.D./PhD, but then his J.D. (doctor of laws) is in law, and his Ph.D. is in some other field.

I have a J.D./M.B.A....two fields, so two degrees.

 

LOL, well when you find a PhD in Consitutional Law from Harvard, please let us know. Because Harvard does not grant PhDs in Law or consitutional law.

 

He does indeed appear to be a real guy with real credentials, and he really does seem to hate the Fed and fiat money. However, he says some very strange things that, so far as I can tell, he never supports or explains.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/VieiraMono4.htm

In fact, the constitution does not say anything at all about gold or silver coins being the only sort of currency, and it does not prohibit the federal government from issuing bills of credit. It does say that the individual state governments can't issue their own bills of credit or make anything other the gold or silver into money, but that's all in Article 1, section 10 - powers prohibited to states. I don't see any possible way that this could be taken to mean that the federal government can't issue bills of credit.

 

Edwin Vieira, Jr. appears to be a real person who makes a living pandering to right wing whackos. I find no scholarly articles written by the man. I find no peer references on the man.

But I do find a lot of wierd stuff and consitiutional references by him which are not correct...misquoting the consitution, mixing up articles, etc. Mistakes I would not expect of a Harvard PhD or J.D.

 

A funny thing, after practicing law for 30 years as he claims, you would expect to see his name in some legal filing. Instead, I only see his name associated with right wing whacko web sites and he says the craziest of things...totally divorced from truth.

I found one reference to a Edwin Vieira, Jr. in Virgina. He was appealing a manslaughter conviction, and he lost the appeal. So it would appear that if this is the same person he is in reality a run of the mill criminal lawyer. I see no cases where he practiced before the supremes of either a state or the US supreme court.

This is the link to his website:
http://www.ask.com/bar?q=edwin vieira&page=1&qsrc=121&ab=0&u=http://edwinvieira.com/

I find it odd that he cites the Phd and JD but fails to say anything about when and where the degrees were awarded. The only time you see Harvard mentioned is in the Whacko websites and there are plenty of them referencing this guy.

 

He is listed as having argued at least two cases before the Supreme Court:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=475&invol=292

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=487&invol=735

Some material about him mentions his having argued or briefed four, but the only other one named is this one which lists him neither as having argued the case nor briefed it. The fourth is unnamed.

He doesn't seem to have any writings in law journals (which are more scholarly and suggest that peers found intellectual merit in the argument), though he clearly has written several books. He references having written for "scholarly journals."

A cursory review of his own "official website" suggests that it is a work in progress (copyright 2007), so poorly proofread that it contains obvious typos, like the word "monetray."

http://edwinvieira.com/

It's good that he at least has a law degree from Harvard (which I'll take his world on) but I see no evidence of his being a serious scholar. He's on record as being anti-Obama over the whole birth certificate issue (demanding that, even if Hawaii did issue a birth certificate, Obama prove that he "has not renounced his American citizenship"). I think this disqualifies him from being taken seriously.

 

This guy Vieira appears to be someone just pandering to the right wingers to make a few bucks. His pedigree is dubious. He appears to be a lawyer but not much beyond being a lawyer.

He does not mention Harvard in his personal website. The PhD is referenced but not specified in any detail. His writings, what I have seen, and his website would be an embarassment to any self respecting Harvard graduate.

 

After a decision unpopular with advocates of capital punishment a few years back, he made some rather questionable comments about how Justice Kennedy should be dealt with.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38308-2005Apr8.html

 

Joepistole, I believe that Vieira really did go to Harvard Law but people can still be nut-jobs even if they did graduate from Harvard Law.

I posted what I found on him in the other thread.

 

The Federal Reserve is still here after all these years. That pretty much means that consensus among people with Harvard Law degrees is that Federal reserve is constitutional. Consensus opinion among people with Harvard Law degrees can change over time.

I think Vieira is significantly farther out on the right fringe legally than Antonin Scalia is and Scallia is pretty far out there. At least with Scalia you can usually rely on him giving you quality logical thinking to back up most of his opinions even if I don't agree with his. Vieira on the Obama birth bit makes me have doubts about Vieira's intellectual standards.

 

Well the Republicans/conservatives or whatever they are calling themselves now days could care less about honest information. It is all about emotion with them.

 

Interestingly, Tom Paine, one of the founders of the republic believed that central banks MUST be private...and that anyone advocating government ownership of the printing presses should be killed!

 

Reference and Citation please.

Paine was talking about the News Press, as in the Constitution the only legal coin is through Congress.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

Under the Constitution it is illegal for the Federal reserve to Coin and Fix the fix and regulate the value of our currency.

“If a Central Bank is ever created in America- Through Inflation and Deflation the “Bankers” will Rob The “Americans” ​

Thomas Jefferson

Seems old Tom was a very far sighted man.

 

Banks and Politics in America from the Revolution to the Civil War
by Bray Hammond, Princeton University Press 1967 Page 61.

 

Citation of reference.......