Trump sounding more and more

[SassyLady]

Like he wants to abolish the Federal Reserve.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[fj1200]

Bad.

[revelarts]

Like he wants to abolish the Federal Reserve.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Good.
BTW isn't the Federal Reserve is kinda unconstitutional?



...The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
...
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
...
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
...

[fj1200]

Good.
BTW isn't the Federal Reserve is kinda unconstitutional?


...The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
...
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
...
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
...



You might want to brush up on the question. The Constitution prohibits the States from coining money etc. As your link points out. ^

[fj1200]

Like he wants to abolish the Federal Reserve.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

What did the populist even say with his well thought out, rationed approach, on the legalities and constitutionality of the Fed Reserrrrr ........ :laugh:

I thought I could say it without laughing.

[revelarts]

More Libertarian (gov't allowing kind of libertarian) than Populist , from my understanding.
From what i've seen populist don't get into those weeds.

Doh, but i forgot everything that I or Sassy says that you don't agree with is either populist, conspiracy or irrational.
So with those labels you can feel comfortable laughing off & ignoring law, facts, history, studies, logic, the constitution, and other points of reality.

So Ok, here's the populist Alan Greenspan, former Fed Chairmen, casually pointing out 1 aspect of the the unconstitutional nature of the Federal Reserve.
PBS, MacNeil Lear News Hour Question:
"What should be the proper relationship between the Chairmen of the FED and the President of United States?"

Alan Greenspan's Answer:
"Well, 1st of all the Federal Reserve is an Independent Agency and that means, basically, that there is no other agency of Gov't which can overrule actions that we take.
So long as that is in place and there is no evidence that the administration, congress or anybody else is requesting that we do things other than what we think are the appropriate thing. Then what the relationships are don't frankly matter."

Source video clip
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/JT1lYMgP7RU?feature=share


A lot of questions come to mind here.
a few simply ones.
Can someone point me to the place in the constitution that sets up "Gov't Agencies" that are NOT under or subject to Any branch of govt?
Can someone point me to the place in the constitution that sets up an "Independent Agency" that's NOT under or subject to Any branch of govt,
that has the authority to exercise the monetary powers placed exclusively under the congress?
Can someone point me to the place in the constitution that sets up an independent agency that tells the U.S. mint to creates it's own monetary Notes, "Federal Reserve Notes" that all the U.S. are bound to honor

...
Here are few questions about the constitutionally of the Fed, by someone who simply assumes the Fed as fact of life and doesn't even really want folks to bother their pretty heads about the constitutional questions.
but he touches it just as a preamble to the "important" questions of what the fed should be doing better.
https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/the-case-for-the-federal-reserve-banks-constitutionality-is-uneasy-indeed-part-i-is-the-fed-more-lik/

If anyone wants to look at an interesting historical review of the creation of the federal reserve.
the film & book "The Creature from Jekyll Island" (both on youtube BTW) is a good one.

[fj1200]

^ There you go again telling me what I think. And you quoted a line that specifically does not pertain to the question that you raised. You listed a State prohibition as though it pertained to the Federal government.

And yes, Libertarians not big on the Fed. Neither are current populists and the populists of old were very much interested in the creation of the Fed and how it affected farmers. And trump is very much a populist and doesn't even pretend to sniff the Libertarian airs. But the question of the thread was getting rid of the Fed; good or bad? Bad BTW. Not the question of its constitutionality. Are we switching to that now?

[SassyLady]

I think getting rid the the Federal Reserve is a good thing.

[SassyLady]

https://rumble.com/v5jlpdf-ep.-3480a-trump-prepares-the-people-the-cb-is-in-the-crosshairs-no-income-t.html?start=1350

[revelarts]

^ .... But the question of the thread was getting rid of the Fed; good or bad? Bad BTW. Not the question of its constitutionality. Are we switching to that now?

My bad again, I forget that I'm not in the majority in thinking that if something is unconstitutional that it is BAD by default.
sorry.
Some conservatives here think unconstitutional can be a good thing. As long as they or someone they support get to choose what unconstitutional project it is.
So the FED is "good" to you, even though it's kinda unconstitutional.
Keeping unreglulated unconstitutional aspects of pseudo gov't is a GOOD thing in your mind...... logically based on your question.

[fj1200]

I think getting rid the the Federal Reserve is a good thing.

Well that was well thought out. :rolleyes:


https://rumble.com/v5jlpdf-ep.-3480a-trump-prepares-the-people-the-cb-is-in-the-crosshairs-no-income-t.html?start=1350

The only interesting thing about that was the gold ad.


My bad again, I forget that I'm not in the majority in thinking that if something is unconstitutional that it is BAD by default.
sorry.
Some conservatives here think unconstitutional can be a good thing. As long as they or someone they support get to choose what unconstitutional project it is.
So the FED is "good" to you, even though it's kinda unconstitutional.
Keeping unreglulated unconstitutional aspects of pseudo gov't is a GOOD thing in your mind...... logically based on your question.

You haven't shown it to be unconstitutional. Your opinion is not shared. And you don't seem to be addressing the central question with the heart of the answer being the alternative prior to the Fed was not a time of glorious days of yesteryear you seem to think it was.

[revelarts]

...

You haven't shown it to be unconstitutional. Your opinion is not shared. And you don't seem to be addressing the central question with the heart of the answer being the alternative prior to the Fed was not a time of glorious days of yesteryear you seem to think it was.

that's the fall back of everyone that does unconstitutional crap. 'it's not really unconstitutional.'. & 'You have a better idea?' supposed pragmatism or necessity.
'torture isn't REALLY unconstitional... or Torture! & I know it was called torture when we complained that the other country does it... and when the city cops did it to the jail inmate... and it's specifically call torture in the Seal's training manual... and in the torture treaties & Nuremberg codes... but it's NOT torture or even cruel or unusual punishment when the CIA or military do it ...to save lives!
the real lawyers ...who work for the government... agree with this interpretation... so it's constitutional.'


But, wait.
I suspect you'll complain that me pointing out the TYPE of argument your making by plugging torture into it, makes you think i'm somhow changing the subject, (or going all over the place) rather than pointing out the flawed logical framework of your argument so.

to make it more clear
"You haven't shown it (Torture or the Fed or...) to be unconstitutional. Your opinion is not shared (about Torture or the Fed or..). And you don't seem to be addressing the central question with the heart of the answer being the alternative prior to the Fed (alternative to Torture or...) was not a time of glorious days of yesteryear you seem to think it was. (it's PRAGMATIC or NECESSARY to have torture or the Fed or guns restricted or less speech because it's better that's the "real" question.)

the argument FORMAT is Plug and Play. Try plugging in -spying on peoples bank accounts-.

While you've ignored my questions about the Greenspan quote.
So, can you show me in the constitution how an agency constitutionally can have those monetary powers and total independence from all branches of govt?



Also mind if i ask, In general, if something is unconstitutional is it BAD or GOOD?

[fj1200]

that's the fall back of everyone that does unconstitutional crap. 'it's not really unconstitutional.'. & 'You have a better idea?' supposed pragmatism or necessity.
'torture isn't REALLY unconstitional... or Torture! & I know it was called torture when we complained that the other country does it... and when the city cops did it to the jail inmate... and it's specifically call torture in the Seal's training manual... and in the torture treaties & Nuremberg codes... but it's NOT torture or even cruel or unusual punishment when the CIA or military do it ...to save lives!
the real lawyers ...who work for the government... agree with this interpretation... so it's constitutional.'


But, wait.
I suspect you'll complain that me pointing out the TYPE of argument your making by plugging torture into it, makes you think i'm somhow changing the subject, (or going all over the place) rather than pointing out the flawed logical framework of your argument so.

to make it more clear
the argument FORMAT is Plug and Play. Try plugging in -spying on peoples bank accounts-.

While you've ignored my questions about the Greenspan quote.
So, can you show me in the constitution how an agency constitutionally can have those monetary powers and total independence from all branches of govt?



Also mind if i ask, In general, if something is unconstitutional is it BAD or GOOD?

This thread is about the Fed I thought. You keep saying it's unconstitutional but you don't make any constitution based arguments except that the ones you did make were exactly not on point. The plug and play format is a red herring; different things have different answers.

As far as Greenspan goes; he was correct. But the Fed exists at the pleasure of Congress and the Executive. The Fed Chair regularly testifies in front of Congress. The Fed mandate is what Congress tells them that it is. The Fed Chair and Governors are nominated by the Executive and Approved by the Senate. That last one sounds like SCOTUS; would you prefer that SCOTUS does what someone tells them? Neverthless, he was correct in the specific but it's not a statement that can be translated to the general. The Federal Reserve is independent for a reason; elected officials should not meddle in things they know nothing about which pretty much describes trump in this scenario. It went poorly when LBJ pressured McChesney Martin and it went poorly when trump did it with Powell. trump is just lucky that he got himself disellected or he'd be taking the blame.

Lastly. something that is constitutional can be or good. something that is unconstitutional can be or good.

[revelarts]

As far as Greenspan goes; he was correct. But the Fed exists at the pleasure of Congress and the Executive. The Fed Chair regularly testifies in front of Congress. The Fed mandate is what Congress tells them that it is. The Fed Chair and Governors are nominated by the Executive and Approved by the Senate. That last one sounds like SCOTUS; would you prefer that SCOTUS does what someone tells them? Neverthless, he was correct in the specific but it's not a statement that can be translated to the general. The Federal Reserve is independent for a reason; elected officials should not meddle in things they know nothing about which pretty much describes trump in this scenario. It went poorly when LBJ pressured McChesney Martin and it went poorly when trump did it with Powell. trump is just lucky that he got himself disellected or he'd be taking the blame.
The SCOTUS is defined in the constitution, the FED is not.
Can you give me the portions of the constitution that specifies or allows such an arrangement, where the congressional monetary authority is not in the elected officials or the Administration or the appointed Courts. Where none have real operational authority over it FJ?

[fj1200]

The SCOTUS is defined in the constitution, the FED is not.
Can you give me the portions of the constitution that specifies or allows such an arrangement, where the congressional monetary authority is not in the elected officials or the Administration or the appointed Courts. Where none have real operational authority over it FJ?

It must have been an oversight where you didn't acknowledge all of the controls over the Federal Reserve.

[revelarts]

It must have been an oversight where you didn't acknowledge all of the controls over the Federal Reserve.
According to Greenspan there are none.

[Gunny]

The only interesting thing about that was the gold ad.:laugh:

[fj1200]

According to Greenspan there are none.

You need to be smarter than random quotes. Do you agree with the following?

The Fed can be abolished?
The Fed Chair can be summoned to Congress?
Congress determines the Fed's mandate?
The Fed Chair and Governors are subject to nomination and approval?

Besides, actually reading the quote for what it says and not what you want it to say... he references agencies of the government having no power to overrule and that there is no evidence that the administration or Congress is requesting other actions. Those are two different interpretations.


"Well, 1st of all the Federal Reserve is an Independent Agency and that means, basically, that there is no other agency of Gov't which can overrule actions that we take.
So long as that is in place and there is no evidence that the administration, congress or anybody else is requesting that we do things other than what we think are the appropriate thing. Then what the relationships are don't frankly matter."

As far as constitutionality, smarter people than I have decided that it's constitutional.

[fj1200]

While you've ignored my questions about the Greenspan quote.

:thinking5:


You need to be smarter than random quotes. Do you agree with the following?

The Fed can be abolished?
The Fed Chair can be summoned to Congress?
Congress determines the Fed's mandate?
The Fed Chair and Governors are subject to nomination and approval?

Besides, actually reading the quote for what it says and not what you want it to say... he references agencies of the government having no power to overrule and that there is no evidence that the administration or Congress is requesting other actions. Those are two different interpretations.



As far as constitutionality, smarter people than I have decided that it's constitutional.

:cof:

What do you think about the idea that elected officials should be nowhere near deciding what to do with the money supply/interest rates? It's already bad enough that they're the ones that need to vote on spending.

[Gunny]

:thinking5:



:cof:

What do you think about the idea that elected officials should be nowhere near deciding what to do with the money supply/interest rates? It's already bad enough that they're the ones that need to vote on spending.

Heaven forbid.

[revelarts]

:thinking5:



:cof:

What do you think about the idea that elected officials should be nowhere near deciding what to do with the money supply/interest rates? It's already bad enough that they're the ones that need to vote on spending.
FJ,
I hadn't replied to your post because I'd decided to leave the last word to you.


But the short answers to your questions.
Yes. Any gov't created entity can be abolished, Except those outlined in the constitution.

And Yes, anyone can be summoned to congress. So Fed members can be as well.

And yes, Some Fed members are appointed, but the point was about unconstitutional authority & operational control.
The appointments are the very thin tether of unconstitutional legislative connection to the Fed.

What do you think of Free market Banking without Gov't or FED controls. Where the federal gov't only operates as a official source of a FIXED amount of dollars based in Gold & Silver stores. And people are also allowed to trade and barter with whatever forms of "money" they like?

[fj1200]

FJ,
I hadn't replied to your post because I'd decided to leave the last word to you.


But the short answers to your questions.
Yes. Any gov't created entity can be abolished, Except those outlined in the constitution.

And Yes, anyone can be summoned to congress. So Fed members can be as well.

And yes, Some Fed members are appointed, but the point was about unconstitutional authority & operational control.
The appointments are the very thin tether of unconstitutional legislative connection to the Fed.

What do you think of Free market Banking without Gov't or FED controls. Where the federal gov't only operates as a official source of a FIXED amount of dollars based in Gold & Silver stores. And people are also allowed to trade and barter with whatever forms of "money" they like?

Question marks by definition are not the last words.

So we can agree that there is a level of control that is there and more that could be there. I'm OK with the level of constitutional authority and lack of control by elected officials in a case like this. If they do not do their job then actions can be taken.

If you really want banking without controls then you're looking at a gold standard and the times before the Fed were not all roses if one looks. Bretton Woods was effective until IMO LBJ, an elected official, started letting his opinion be known. And when you have a system with checks against it, such as Bretton Woods, and France starts backing up the freighter in NY harbor asking to exchange their excess dollars for some odd tons of gold you see that something isn't right.

Is the Fed named in the Constitution? No. Is the Fed constitutional? Yes. Is it perfect? No. Is it the best option? Possibly based on the history of other currencies since Nixon closed the gold window. Should it be abolished? No. Is the problem the Fed? No. The problem is tens of trillions of dollars in Federal debt IMO.