Fareed Zakaria: The founding fathers

[BenBurch]

When a SC decision is in conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution rules. ...

Come back when you understand American Law.

What country did you say you were educated in?

 

[BenBurch]

For the readers who are just joining; What YOU think the Constitution says is utterly irrelevant to the law. The ONLY thing that matters is what the Courts and ultimately the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution to be. We have a name for people who thought otherwise; defendants.

 

[ngc6205]

Really. Then who owns the Fed?

The structure of the Federal Reserve can be determined by reading the law that created it. The law can be found in 12 USC Chapter 3. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12_10_3.html
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/12C3.txt

At the top of the Federal Reserve System is the Board of Governors. Each member of the Board of Governors is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Board of Governors does not issue stock and is not owned. The Chairman of the Board of Governors has to periodically report to Congress on the state of the economy and whenever Congress wants testimony. The Board of Governors also presents an annual report on the Federal Reserve to Congress each year. Several sections concerning requirements and responsibilities of the Board of Governors can be read at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12_10_3_20_II.html

Beneath the Board of Governors are the 12 Federal Reserve district banks. Each of the Federal Reserve district banks do issue stock, but that stock is much different from typical corporate stock. Only nationally chartered banks and some state chartered banks may hold this stock. National banks are required by law to subscribe to a certain amount of stock in one of the district banks. State banks are not required to become members but may do so if they meet certain requirements and subscribe to the required amount of stock. Each member bank may hold no more and no less than the required amount. They may not sell or trade this stock. Don't you think that if the Federal Reserve really were private that a member bank would be able to buy and sell the stock at will?

The stock confers no rights of ownership either. There are only a few benefits of holding this stock which can be determined by reading the law. While the law does have a section regarding the public issue of stock, NO PUBLIC STOCK HAS EVER BEEN ISSUED. That is simply an outdated section of law that was never used. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12_10_3_20_VI.html and http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12_10_3_20_VIII.html

The stock has only TWO benefits for the member banks that hold it. First, the stock pays an annual 6% dividend to compensate the member bank for not having access to a portion of their capital. Second, each member bank gets ONE vote for each of TWO members of a district bank's board of directors. Overall, the member banks elect 6 members of the board of directors. The Board of Governors select the other three members of the district bank's board of directors. The chairman and deputy chairman of the district bank's board of directors are designated by the Board of Governors from the three members chosen by the Board of Governors. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000305----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000304----000-.html

If a Federal Reserve district bank were to be dissolved, all assets and liabilities would become the responsibility of the U.S. Government. If the Federal Reserve really were private, excess assets would become the property of the shareholders. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000290----000-.html

The Federal Reserve isn't "for-profit" either. Each year, after expenses and the small dividend to member banks are paid, excess earnings are paid to the U.S. Treasury. In 2010, the Federal Reserve transferred $79.3 billion to the U.S. Treasury. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2011-03-22-fed-payment-record.htm Note: The Federal Reserve earned $26.4 billion on the U.S. Treasury securities that it holds.

All of the above can be verified by reading the law and getting information from RELIABLE sources. Reliable sources on the Federal Reserve are books written by economists and articles in peer reviewed journals. Most websites and Internet videos about the Federal Reserve are NOT reliable sources of information and they are not written by economists.

 

[BobTheCoward]

private banking syndicate

Private?

It is clearly a mix of private/public aspects. For one, I wouldn't call the fact that it receives funding from member banks as a sign of its private nature. It is a goal of some republicans that some government agencies receive their funding from collecting fees from the groups they regulate.

Banking?
Obviously.

Syndicate? I had to look this one up to be specific.
2.
a group of individuals or organizations combined or making a joint effort to undertake some specific duty or carry out specific transactions or negotiations: The local furniture store is individually owned, but is part of a buying syndicate.
2.
a combination of bankers or capitalists formed for the purpose of carrying out some project requiring large resources of capital, as the underwriting of an issue of stock or bonds.

So, yes, it is a syndicate.

We disagree over whether the fed is a good thing or bad thing ( i am on good), but I won't dispute a statement that I feel is technically correct even though it isn't generally seen as a positive characterization.

 

[ngc6205]

In a criminal trial, a jury's "not guilty" verdict is not appeal-able. It is the end of the case. And Jury Nullification most certainly is used today, depending on the knowledge of the Jury and immunity to the Judge's brainwash instructions. Furthermore, the Right of nullification is not only embedded in our Common law, it is also written in some State Constitutions. And when several Nullifications occur, the law is for all practical purposes dead.

Again, you need to read what I wrote. I said "it may have been common practice 200 years ago, but it isn't today." That doesn't mean that jury nullification doesn't exist, only that it is seen less often.

Also, in a CIVIL matter, which would be the situation under a case regarding the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve Act or any part of it, a jury verdict can be appealed.

 

[Ausmerican]

Just out of curiosity am I correct in assuming you are a product of a government school?

Just out of curiosity am I correct in assuming you are a product of a home school?

 

[Robert Prey]

Again, you need to read what I wrote. I said "it may have been common practice 200 years ago, but it isn't today." That doesn't mean that jury nullification doesn't exist, only that it is seen less often.

Also, in a CIVIL matter, which would be the situation under a case regarding the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve Act or any part of it, a jury verdict can be appealed.

Which is why those who seek to try and correct the situation by challenging Fed Notes in court make sure it is a criminal case.

 

[Robert Prey]

Who Owns the Fed?

The structure of the Federal Reserve can be determined by reading the law that created it. The law can be found in 12 USC Chapter 3. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12_10_3.html
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/12C3.txt

At the top of the Federal Reserve System is the Board of Governors. Each member of the Board of Governors is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Board of Governors does not issue stock and is not owned. The Chairman of the Board of Governors has to periodically report to Congress on the state of the economy and whenever Congress wants testimony. The Board of Governors also presents an annual report on the Federal Reserve to Congress each year. Several sections concerning requirements and responsibilities of the Board of Governors can be read at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12_10_3_20_II.html

Beneath the Board of Governors are the 12 Federal Reserve district banks. Each of the Federal Reserve district banks do issue stock, but that stock is much different from typical corporate stock. Only nationally chartered banks and some state chartered banks may hold this stock. National banks are required by law to subscribe to a certain amount of stock in one of the district banks. State banks are not required to become members but may do so if they meet certain requirements and subscribe to the required amount of stock. Each member bank may hold no more and no less than the required amount. They may not sell or trade this stock. Don't you think that if the Federal Reserve really were private that a member bank would be able to buy and sell the stock at will?

The stock confers no rights of ownership either. There are only a few benefits of holding this stock which can be determined by reading the law. While the law does have a section regarding the public issue of stock, NO PUBLIC STOCK HAS EVER BEEN ISSUED. That is simply an outdated section of law that was never used. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12_10_3_20_VI.html and http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12_10_3_20_VIII.html

The stock has only TWO benefits for the member banks that hold it. First, the stock pays an annual 6% dividend to compensate the member bank for not having access to a portion of their capital. Second, each member bank gets ONE vote for each of TWO members of a district bank's board of directors. Overall, the member banks elect 6 members of the board of directors. The Board of Governors select the other three members of the district bank's board of directors. The chairman and deputy chairman of the district bank's board of directors are designated by the Board of Governors from the three members chosen by the Board of Governors. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000305----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000304----000-.html

If a Federal Reserve district bank were to be dissolved, all assets and liabilities would become the responsibility of the U.S. Government. If the Federal Reserve really were private, excess assets would become the property of the shareholders. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000290----000-.html

The Federal Reserve isn't "for-profit" either. Each year, after expenses and the small dividend to member banks are paid, excess earnings are paid to the U.S. Treasury. In 2010, the Federal Reserve transferred $79.3 billion to the U.S. Treasury. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2011-03-22-fed-payment-record.htm Note: The Federal Reserve earned $26.4 billion on the U.S. Treasury securities that it holds.

All of the above can be verified by reading the law and getting information from RELIABLE sources. Reliable sources on the Federal Reserve are books written by economists and articles in peer reviewed journals. Most websites and Internet videos about the Federal Reserve are NOT reliable sources of information and they are not written by economists.

So??? Who owns the Fed?

 

[Robert Prey]

And as I previously stated, that clause obviously only applies to the states since it begins with "No State".

So, if the States are prohibited from coining money, or emitting bills of credit, but must only make gold and silver coin a tender, then just what gold and silver coin must the Founders be referring to that the states are to enforce as tender if not that coined and regulated by Congress as per Art. I, Sec. 8.

This is really a true example of what George Orwell called "DoubleThink" -- the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

 

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by ngc6205 View Post
"Again, you need to read what I wrote. I said "it may have been common practice 200 years ago, but it isn't today." That doesn't mean that jury nullification doesn't exist, only that it is seen less often."

What is different today from 200 years ago is that judges do not allow lawyers or defendants inform the jury of the right. Juries just have to know it going in.

 

[Robert Prey]

Private?

It is clearly a mix of private/public aspects. For one, I wouldn't call the fact that it receives funding from member banks as a sign of its private nature. It is a goal of some republicans that some government agencies receive their funding from collecting fees from the groups they regulate.

Banking?
Obviously.

Syndicate? I had to look this one up to be specific.
2.
a group of individuals or organizations combined or making a joint effort to undertake some specific duty or carry out specific transactions or negotiations: The local furniture store is individually owned, but is part of a buying syndicate.
2.
a combination of bankers or capitalists formed for the purpose of carrying out some project requiring large resources of capital, as the underwriting of an issue of stock or bonds.

So, yes, it is a syndicate.

We disagree over whether the fed is a good thing or bad thing ( i am on good), but I won't dispute a statement that I feel is technically correct even though it isn't generally seen as a positive characterization.

Well, let me try to explain it to you in everyday terms. Supposing you had a next door neighbor who had everything money could by, mansions, cars, jewels, etc,, and very rich friends as well, but neither he nor his friends work for a living. And one day, you just had to ask him how he does it. And he says, oh, it's very simple I just have a printing press in my basement that prints money, and whenever I or any of my friends need something...

 

[Robert Prey]

For the readers who are just joining; What YOU think the Constitution says is utterly irrelevant to the law. The ONLY thing that matters is what the Courts and ultimately the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution to be. We have a name for people who thought otherwise; defendants.

Some of us who know better would call them Patriots.

 

[ngc6205]

So, if the States are prohibited from coining money, or emitting bills of credit, but must only make gold and silver coin a tender, then just what gold and silver coin must the Founders be referring to that the states are to enforce as tender if not that coined and regulated by Congress as per Art. I, Sec. 8.

This is really a true example of what George Orwell called "DoubleThink" -- the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

No, it isn't. The Constitution gives the power over all aspects of currency to Congress. Congress has the power to determine what is legal tender nationwide. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 is to prevent the states from actions that would run counter to the federal government's actions to regulate the value of money.

The grounds, upon which the general power to coin money, and regulate the value of foreign and domestic coin, is granted to the national government, cannot require much illustration in order to vindicate it. The object of the power is to produce uniformity of value throughout the Union, and thus to preclude us from the embarrassments of a perpetually fluctuating and variable currency. Money is the universal medium or common standard, by a comparison with which the value of all merchandise may be ascertained, or, it is a sign, which represents the respective values of all commodities. It is, therefore, indispensable for the wants and conveniences of commerce, domestic as well as foreign. The power to coin money is one of the ordinary prerogatives of sovereignty, and is almost universally exercised in order to preserve a proper circulation of good coin of a known value in the home market. In order to secure it from debasement it is necessary, that it should be exclusively under the control and regulation of the government; for if every individual were permitted to make and circulate, what coin he should please, there would be an opening to the grossest frauds and impositions upon the public, by the use of base and false coin. And the same remark applies with equal force to foreign coin, if allowed to circulate freely in a country without any control by the government. Every civilized government, therefore, with a view to prevent such abuses, to facilitate exchanges, and thereby to encourage all sorts of industry and commerce, as well as to guard itself against the embarrassments of an undue scarcity of currency, injurious to its own interests and credits, has found it necessary to coin money, and affix to it a public stamp and value, and to regulate the introduction and use of foreign coins.

In England, this prerogative belongs to the crown; and, in former ages, it was greatly abused; for base coin was often coined and circulated by its authority, at a value far above its intrinsic worth; and thus taxes of a burthensome nature were laid indirectly upon the people. There is great propriety, therefore, in confiding it to the legislature, not only as the more immediate representatives of the public interests, but as. the more safe depositaries of the power.

§ 1114. The only question, which could properly arise under our political institutions, is, whether it should be confided to the national, or to the state government. It is manifest, that the former could alone give it complete effect, and secure a wholesome and uniform currency throughout the Union. The varying standards and regulations of the different states would introduce infinite embarrassments and vexations in the course of trade; and often subject the innocent to the grossest frauds. The evils of this nature were so extensively felt, that the power was unhesitatingly confided by the articles of confederation exclusively to the general government, notwithstanding the extraordinary jealousy, which pervades every clause of that instrument. But the concurrent power thereby reserved to the states, (as well as the want of a power to regulate the value of foreign coin,) was, under that feeble pageant of sovereignty, soon found to destroy the whole importance of the grant. The floods of depreciated paper money, with which most of the states of the Union, during the last war, as well. as the revolutionary war with England, were inundated, to the dismay of the traveller and the ruin of commerce, afford a lively proof of the mischiefs of a currency exclusively under the control of the states.
-Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on Constitution of the United States, Book 3, Chapter 17.

 

[ngc6205]

So??? Who owns the Fed?

It should be clear from my earlier post referencing the law that created it.

Congress created it.
Congress has modified it over the years.
The President appoints the people to run it (Board of Governors).
The Senate either confirms or denies those appointments.
The Board of Governors does not issue stock.
The Board of Governors is required to report to Congress on a regular basis.
Monetary policy is determined by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) and not the district or member banks.
The Board of Governors are the controlling members of the FOMC.
The GAO and an independent auditing firm perform audits and reviews on it which are included or referenced in the Federal Reserve annual report to Congress.
Its net earnings are paid to the U.S. Treasury every year.
If it were to be dissolved, the member banks would have their subscriptions returned. All other assets and liabilities become the responsibility of the U.S. Government.

 

[ngc6205]

Originally Posted by ngc6205 View Post
"Again, you need to read what I wrote. I said "it may have been common practice 200 years ago, but it isn't today." That doesn't mean that jury nullification doesn't exist, only that it is seen less often."

What is different today from 200 years ago is that judges do not allow lawyers or defendants inform the jury of the right. Juries just have to know it going in.

I wouldn't call jury nullification a "right". It is a practice where juries simply ignored the law and decided cases based upon their personal opinions.

It really doesn't matter what the practice was 200 years ago either. What counts is how the courts see the issue today.

In California at least, jurors are required to report other jurors who may be leaning toward deciding a case based on their personal opinion of the law.

Some states have jurors swear an oath to render a verdict to the best of their ability in accordance with the law and evidence.

How far out on the slippery slope do you want to go? How much do you want sympathy to play in adjudicating guilt or innocence? Is sympathy based on race okay? I bet there were plenty of KKK members that were acquitted of murder in front of all white juries.

It can work against defendants as well as for. How about we let the jury ignore the law and decide guilt or innocence based on envy - you know, those rich people have all those tax loopholes so he's guilty because the law just isn't taking enough from them.

Regardless of what you feel about the laws concerning legal tender and the Federal Reserve, the simple fact is that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender now. Until Congress changes the law or it is overturned by a court, Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender.

 

[BenBurch]

Some of us who know better would call them Patriots.

Feel free to be Patriotic.

 

[Travis]

Some of us who know better would call them Patriots.

Timothy McVeigh thought he was a Patriot too.

 

[Robert Prey]

It should be clear from my earlier post referencing the law that created it.

Congress created it.
Congress has modified it over the years.
The President appoints the people to run it (Board of Governors).
The Senate either confirms or denies those appointments.
The Board of Governors does not issue stock.
The Board of Governors is required to report to Congress on a regular basis.
Monetary policy is determined by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) and not the district or member banks.
The Board of Governors are the controlling members of the FOMC.
The GAO and an independent auditing firm perform audits and reviews on it which are included or referenced in the Federal Reserve annual report to Congress.
Its net earnings are paid to the U.S. Treasury every year.
If it were to be dissolved, the member banks would have their subscriptions returned. All other assets and liabilities become the responsibility of the U.S. Government.

But who owns it?

 

[Robert Prey]

I wouldn't call jury nullification a "right". It is a practice where juries simply ignored the law and decided cases based upon their personal opinions.

It really doesn't matter what the practice was 200 years ago either. What counts is how the courts see the issue today.

In California at least, jurors are required to report other jurors who may be leaning toward deciding a case based on their personal opinion of the law.

Some states have jurors swear an oath to render a verdict to the best of their ability in accordance with the law and evidence.

How far out on the slippery slope do you want to go? How much do you want sympathy to play in adjudicating guilt or innocence? Is sympathy based on race okay? I bet there were plenty of KKK members that were acquitted of murder in front of all white juries.

It can work against defendants as well as for. How about we let the jury ignore the law and decide guilt or innocence based on envy - you know, those rich people have all those tax loopholes so he's guilty because the law just isn't taking enough from them.

Regardless of what you feel about the laws concerning legal tender and the Federal Reserve, the simple fact is that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender now. Until Congress changes the law or it is overturned by a court, Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender.

Yes, the right has been abused. But it has also safeguarded against tyranny. It's the human condition. In the end, the jury system is the worst possible system of determining justice -- except for all the other legal systems. Now that you are aware of the right or as you say the "power" and you are called to a case where a person get's a life sentence for swiping a slice of pizza (true case in California as I recall as per 3 strikes law) and the Facts are not in dispute, how do you vote? And how do you argue the case? Do you argue, "Let us do what is just" or do you argue that "The law is the Law" or perhaps "Hey, if you can't do the time, then don't do the crime."

 

[Robert Prey]

No, it isn't. The Constitution gives the power over all aspects of currency to Congress. Congress has the power to determine what is legal tender nationwide. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 is to prevent the states from actions that would run counter to the federal government's actions to regulate the value of money.

No, it isn't. The Constitution gives the power over all aspects of currency to Congress. Congress has the power to determine what is legal tender nationwide. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 is to prevent the states from actions that would run counter to the federal government's actions to regulate the value of money.

Upside down and backwards. Art. I,Sec. 10 purpose was to prevent the Congress from making a paper currency a legal tender. It might be helpful to read more of Madison's Notes on the subject:

There were many friends of Paper Money on August 16, 1787 when the discussion arose on Art. I, Sec. 8. The proposed wording was:
"The Legislature of the United States shall have the power to... coin money...and emit bills on the credit of the United States." And then came the arguments:
"Mr. G. Morris moved to strike out "and emit bills of credit." If the United States had credit, such bills would be unnecessary; if they had not, unjust and useless.
Madison: Would it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best.
Mr. Wilson: It would have a most salutary influence on the credit of the United States to remove the possibility of paper money.
"The motion for striking out carried.

Here is Madison's account on Art. I, Sec. 10:
Mr. Wilson and Mr. Sherman moved to insert after the words "coin money" the words "nor emit bills of credit, nor make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts" making these prohibitions absolute, instead of making the measures allowable with the consent of the Legislature of the U.S.
Mr. Sherman thought this a favourable crisis for crushing paper money. If the consent of the Legislature could authorize emissions of it, the friends of paper money would make every exertion to get into the Legislature in order to license it.


Is there something about the words "crushing paper money" that is ambiguous or unclear?