Treasury Bond's...

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

There is a law, classified as a counterfeiting law, against the copying of any federal obligation, which would include Savings Bonds and Treasury Bonds.

If there are laws against counterfeiting, you'd think there should also be laws that forbid the federal government from granting a monopoly on the practice of counterfeiting to a private central bank like the Fed.

Do you agree, Shoonra?

[Grench]

Originally Posted by psholtz

If there are laws against counterfeiting, you'd think there should also be laws that forbid the federal government from granting a monopoly on the practice of counterfeiting to a private central bank like the Fed.

Do you agree, Shoonra?

I think you've made more sence then, Davids "discovery" of the Certificate Of Search. Plus, if the consitution state's, we our own source of currency that, a contract (like a savings bond) would be able to "act" (congress gave the "order" themselve's in 1933) as a 'general' (including, but not limited to FRN's) currency of THIS state (i.e. this country) why would they allow fraud (check the defintion on page 2) to be commited on such a grand scale?

Please, wake up you dumb motha$%&*!

Regards,
Phil
Without Recourse To All Counsel

[mrg]

Originally Posted by psholtz

If there are laws against counterfeiting, you'd think there should also be laws that forbid the federal government from granting a monopoly on the practice of counterfeiting to a private central bank like the Fed.

There is a law: "...this Constitution for the United States of America."

Shoonra apparently believes it was built from straw with its foundation laid on the shifting sands of time rather than built from brick and stone with a foundation laid on any solid bedrock.

[Shoonra]

The federal reserve system has been upheld as constitutional numerous times.

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The federal reserve system has been upheld as constitutional numerous times.

And we care about that why?

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The federal reserve system has been upheld as constitutional numerous times.

I didn't ask you whether the Federal Reserve System has been upheld as "constitutional" numerous times.

I asked you whether or not there were any laws on the books that forbid the federal government from granting a monopoly on the practice of counterfeiting federal obligations, which is precisely the kind of unlawful practice that the federal reserve engages.

You made a big deal out of there being laws forbidding the practice of counterfeiting.

So certainly, you must agree w/ me, there should be laws somewhere that forbid the government from granting a monopoly on the practice of counterfeiting to a private central bank?

[Shoonra]

Congress has declared FRNs to be legal tender. Therefore, FRNs are by definition not counterfeit.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Congress has declared FRNs to be legal tender. Therefore, FRNs are by definition not counterfeit.

Yes, I understand that Congress gave the Federal Reserve a monopoly over the practice of counterfeiting federal obligations.

Again, that's not what I asked you.

For the last time (hopefully), what I asked you is, if it's true that we have laws against the counterfeiting of federal obligations, don't you think there should also be a law (if there isn't already) forbidding the federal government from granting a monopoly of the counterfeiting of federal obligations federal obligations to a private central bank like the federal reserve?

[Notorial dissent]

Originally Posted by psholtz

I didn't ask you whether the Federal Reserve System has been upheld as "constitutional" numerous times.
No you asked one of your usual nonsense questions. If it has been held constitutional, then there is no constitutional provision against it, and it has been in fact authorized by law.

I asked you whether or not there were any laws on the books that forbid the federal government from granting a monopoly on the practice of counterfeiting federal obligations, which is precisely the kind of unlawful practice that the federal reserve engages. Again, same answer as above. There is NO law forbidding it, and there is constitutional authority for them to delegate the “minting” of money to the Fed, which is what was done by Federal statute, and upheld by the Supreme Court, as Shoonra points out, numerous times. Therefore, the practice is not unlawful, but is lawful and delegated.


You made a big deal out of there being laws forbidding the practice of counterfeiting.
They are a big deal, particularly when you violate them.

So certainly, you must agree w/ me, there should be laws somewhere that forbid the government from granting a monopoly on the practice of counterfeiting to a private central bank?

Why? And not in this life. The Congress is entirely within their rights to delegate the “minting” of money if they so please, and they have done so by authorizing the Fed to issue currency on behalf of the Treasury. Which is exactly what they have done.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

Why? And not in this life. The Congress is entirely within their rights to delegate the “minting” of money if they so please, and they have done so by authorizing the Fed to issue currency on behalf of the Treasury. Which is exactly what they have done.

(1) What specifically has been held to be "constitutional" about the Federal Reserve? The practice of counterfeiting?

(2) Are you trying to say that there is no law forbidding the practice of counterfeiting?

(3) Why is it a big deal if I counterfeit $$, but it's not a big deal if the Federal Reserve counterfeit's $$?

(4) The Federal Reserve does not "mint" money; to my knowledge, it never has. The Federal Reserve counterfeits paper obligations.