Audit the Federal Reserve HR 1207/S 604

[HeartLunger]

I am writing today to encourage my fellow citizens of Ohio to call their federal representative and demand that they support HR 1207, Federal Reserve Transparency Act and to contact Senator Voinovich and Senator Brown to demand they support S 604, The Federal Reserve Sunshine Act.

While already having $11 trillion in national debt; Congress, the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve have put us on the hook for an additional $13 trillion in bailout and loans, however, the Federal Reserve refuses to tell Congress which financial institutions have received these funds. The Federal Reserve also enjoys a monopoly over the flow of our money and credit but has never been completely transparent and accountable to Congress since its creation in 1913.

HR 1207 amends section 714 of Title 31 of the U.S. Code to remove the restrictions on how the Government Accountability Office (GAO) can audit the Federal Reserve. With these restrictions gone, the Fed’s discount window operations, funding facilities, open market operations, and agreements with foreign central banks and governments would all finally be open to congressional oversight. The GAO would be required to audit the Fed by the end of 2010 and to report its findings to Congress.

[hangtownz]

Speaking of "The Federal Reserve". How many people here know that the Federal Reserve is no more federal than Federal Express? It's a deceptive name. Or what a Federal Reserve Note really is.........all my life I was lead to believe it was money.

[HeartLunger]

Speaking of "The Federal Reserve". How many people here know that the Federal Reserve is no more federal than Federal Express? It's a deceptive name. Or what a Federal Reserve Note really is.........all my life I was lead to believe it was money.


Furthermore, I wonder how many know the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional?

[geezer II]

I need sum stimulus :p

[GMbuck]

I am writing today to encourage my fellow citizens of Ohio to call their federal representative and demand that they support HR 1207, Federal Reserve Transparency Act and to contact Senator Voinovich and Senator Brown to demand they support S 604, The Federal Reserve Sunshine Act.

While already having $11 trillion in national debt; Congress, the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve have put us on the hook for an additional $13 trillion in bailout and loans, however, the Federal Reserve refuses to tell Congress which financial institutions have received these funds. The Federal Reserve also enjoys a monopoly over the flow of our money and credit but has never been completely transparent and accountable to Congress since its creation in 1913.

HR 1207 amends section 714 of Title 31 of the U.S. Code to remove the restrictions on how the Government Accountability Office (GAO) can audit the Federal Reserve. With these restrictions gone, the Fed’s discount window operations, funding facilities, open market operations, and agreements with foreign central banks and governments would all finally be open to congressional oversight. The GAO would be required to audit the Fed by the end of 2010 and to report its findings to Congress.

A conservative arguing for more laws and more congress? Some other motivation perhaps?

[HeartLunger]

A conservative arguing for more laws and more congress? Some other motivation perhaps?


My motivation is as follows and in no particular order:



Financial peace through lower and eliminating unneeded taxes
My children having financial peace through lower and eliminating unneeded taxes.
The Federal Reserve should never have been created as it is unconstitutional(article 1, section 8)
The value of the dollar has decreased by 95% since the creation of the Federal Reserve.
Giving more power to the citizens
If we are going to regulate banks and other private financial institutions; shouldn't we also regulate and audit the biggest private financial institution in America-the Federal Reserve?
To curb inflation...and eliminate hyper inflation by disallowing the Federal Reserve to print money at their whim or because they feel it is needed.
To disallow them to make deals with foreign banks without the authority of the citizens of the United States.

All in all, my motivation is just common sense. What is your motivation? :)

[GMbuck]

My motivation is as follows and in no particular order:



Financial peace through lower and eliminating unneeded taxes
My children having financial peace through lower and eliminating unneeded taxes.
The Federal Reserve should never have been created as it is unconstitutional(article 1, section 8)
The value of the dollar has decreased by 95% since the creation of the Federal Reserve.
Giving more power to the citizens
If we are going to regulate banks and other private financial institutions; shouldn't we also regulate and audit the biggest private financial institution in America-the Federal Reserve?
To curb inflation...and eliminate hyper inflation by disallowing the Federal Reserve to print money at their whim or because they feel it is needed.
To disallow them to make deals with foreign banks without the authority of the citizens of the United States.
All in all, my motivation is just common sense. What is your motivation? :)

So you support increased regulation as long as it is "common sense"? I don't think much of your rationale are common sense at all. Just a side issue, but the "unconstitutional" argument is not based in fact. Purely as a technical matter, and there is a ridiculous amount of precedent in support of this proposition, laws are presumed constitutional and remain so until a court says otherwise.

Not to mention the fact that the powers of congress have always been interpreted expansively. The "Necessary and Proper Clause" which is included in your citation is the specific authority used by the Supreme court to justify the ability of Congress to create a national bank. (I'm not sure where you see it saying otherwise?) To say differently now would run counter to the priniple of stare decisis. Are you also a proponent of judicial activism?

[HeartLunger]

So you support increased regulation as long as it is "common sense"? I don't think much of your rationale are common sense at all. Just a side issue, but the "unconstitutional" argument is not based in fact. Purely as a technical matter, and there is a ridiculous amount of precedent in support of this proposition, laws are presumed constitutional and remain so until a court says otherwise.

Not to mention the fact that the powers of congress have always been interpreted expansively. The "Necessary and Proper Clause" which is included in your citation is the specific authority used by the Supreme court to justify the ability of Congress to create a national bank. (I'm not sure where you see it saying otherwise?) To say differently now would run counter to the priniple of stare decisis. Are you also a proponent of judicial activism?

Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to do the following, not the Federal Reserve:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;


To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;


To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

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

I don't support increased regulation! I support auditing the Federal Reserve.

Again, I will ask: what is your motivation?

[GMbuck]

Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to do the following, not the Federal Reserve:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;


To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;


To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

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

I don't support increased regulation! I support auditing the Federal Reserve.

Again, I will ask: what is your motivation?

My motivation is very plain. I want to shed light on the hypocrisy of the "conserative movement".

I think it was McCulloch v. Maryland in which justice Marshall held that the necessary and proper clause of Article I section 8 of the constitution, mysteriously omitted from your quotation, enabled congress to create a national bank.

In order to effectuate an audit and/or accomplish any of your listed motivations, more regulations would be required. Quite the opposite of the "less government" rallying cry normally trumpeted. In order to eliminate the federal reserve, we'd either need more legislation (gasp!, not again) or we'd need the supreme court to overrule centuries of precedent without a change in the relavent law. A textbook definition of judicial activism. (of course another insult hurled by "conservatives")

I am not arguing the wisdom of a nearly independent national bank..

[jackalope]

laws are presumed constitutional and remain so until a court says otherwise.



Someone needs to read the Bill of Rights.....


Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Do you need some clarification of that..... It sates... Congress has NO power to pass any law not expressly given to them by the power of the constitution.. Those powers are reserved to the rights of the States and the people.....


In other words.... A Law is unconstitutional if passed regardless of ex post facto supreme court rulings... If congress didn't have the power granted to them under the constitution to legislate said law.

Nowhere in the constitution does it give congress the right to legislate control to a private consortium of bankers to run the countries monetary system.

[HeartLunger]

My motivation is very plain. I want to shed light on the hypocrisy of the "conserative movement".

I think it was McCulloch v. Maryland in which justice Marshall held that the necessary and proper clause of Article I section 8 of the constituion, mysteriously omitted from your quotation, enabled congress to create a national bank.

In order to effectuate an audit and/or accomplish any of your listed motivations, more regulations would be required. Quite the opposite of the "less government" rallying cry normally trumpeted. In order to eliminate the federal reserve, we'd either need more legislation (gasp!, not again) or we'd need the supreme court to overrule centuries of precedent without a change in the relavent law. A textbook definition of judicial activism. (of course another insult hurled by "conservatives")

I am not arguing the wisdom of a nearly independent national bank..

Perhaps you should focus on the hypocrisy within your own party instead of assuming I'm part of the conservative movement.

Why don't you say which clause I omitted?

I'm not confident you know what you are talking about. One of the points that McCulloch vs Maryland established is that the state government cannot tax the federal government. But more importantly, in this instance, established that Congress has the right to operate a federal bank. The Federal Reserve is not under the control of Congress, nor the people.

So are you defending regulation or advocating?

[GMbuck]

Perhaps you should focus on the hypocrisy within your own party instead of assuming I'm part of the conservative movement.

Why don't you say which clause I omitted?

I'm not confident you know what you are talking about. One of the points that McCulloch vs Maryland established is that the state government cannot tax the federal government. But more importantly, in this instance, established that Congress has the right to operate a federal bank. The Federal Reserve is not under the control of Congress, nor the people.

So are you defending regulation or advocating?

What party am I with?
I advocate sensible regulation.
Have you abandoned the unconstitutional argument or just changed it? I can't tell.
If you are not confident I know what I'm talking about, I apologize foe either dumbing it down too far for you or talking over your head. Again, I'm not sure which. Though I have my suspicions.

A national bank is constitutional. Period. The necessary and proper clause was used to legitimize its creation. Period. The remainder of article I section 8 does not limits congressional power, it just lists it. Period. Justice Marshall specifically rejected your position. Period.

I have repeated over and over again, that the relevant clause is the necessary and proper clause. Reread the section. You will find it. The entire clause is only a few words.

[HeartLunger]

What party am I with?
I advocate sensible regulation.
Have you abandoned the unconstitutional argument or just changed it? I can't tell.
If you are not confident I know what I'm talking about, I apologize foe either dumbing it down too far for you or talking over your head. Again, I'm not sure which. Though I have my suspicions.

A national bank is constitutional. Period. The necessary and proper clause was used to legitimize its creation. Period. The remainder of article I section 8 does not limits congressional power, it just lists it. Period. Justice Marshall specifically rejected your position. Period.

I have repeated over and over again, that the relevant clause is the necessary and proper clause. Reread the section. You will find it. The entire clause is only a few words.

I'm still trying to figure out what end you are speaking out of? If it's the end I suspect, then you are certainly talking beneath me.

[GMbuck]

Someone needs to read the Bill of Rights.....


Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Do you need some clarification of that..... It sates... Congress has NO power to pass any law not expressly given to them by the power of the constitution.. Those powers are reserved to the rights of the States and the people.....


In other words.... A Law is unconstitutional if passed regardless of ex post facto supreme court rulings... If congress didn't have the power granted to them under the constitution to legislate said law.

Nowhere in the constitution does it give congress the right to legislate control to a private consortium of bankers to run the countries monetary system.

You are talking apples and oranges. I'm not sure why. My point is simple and self evident. I could, if I were so inclined give you a string citation for the authority supporting my point. I won't. Instead, consider the alternative. Perhaps you will then understand why you are not right.

As far as the 10th amendment. It is sometimes the basis for the court holding a law unconstitutional. However, the law is still constitutional until the court says so... As they say: "a little knowledge is dangerous"

[GMbuck]

I'm still trying to figure out what end you are speaking out of? If it's the end I suspect, then you are certainly talking beneath me.

No substance.

[HeartLunger]

No substance.


As they say, fight fire with fire.

[Pathfinder85]

Speaking of "The Federal Reserve". How many people here know that the Federal Reserve is no more federal than Federal Express? It's a deceptive name. Or what a Federal Reserve Note really is.........all my life I was lead to believe it was money.

That is exactly right! Its like saying First Federal Bank is a government institution, when its nothing of the sort. Money is pretty much a joke. Its dead president trading cards that we all agree are worth something or other because of what? The gold supply at Ft. Knox?:coco: Because of the never ending "credit" that our country has pretty much drown in? Wall Street that has traded,merged,and sold most everything to every other country in the world? We've been living in a bankrupt country since Roosevelt. Look it up!

[HeartLunger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PC9fkLMZmo&feature=related