Constitutionality of Delegating Authority to Independent Agencies (or: Calling BS on Zaku)

[Darius871]

For those just tuning in, zaku started an off-topic tangent in his other thread, and then hypocritically whined to me that asking some questions in response to his tangent took the thread off-topic, inviting me to make a new thread. Here it is. I don't expect any serious answers, but this should be entertaining nonetheless.

No Darius, I don't have support for either side.

1) That wasn't my question. My question was how you reconcile [your stated belief that legislative and judicial bureaucrats are better gauges of what "the people" in Honduras want than the voter referendum proposed by Zelaya would have been] with [your previously stated belief that Article 5 Amendments passed by legislatures and upheld by the judiciary aren't valid without approval by "the people," which means a referendum]. The two positions are fundamentally at odds. Can you see that?

2) You also explicitly stated that "if you want to know, the population has a majority against Zelaya" on this issue, and I asked how you obtained this information that has apparently been kept secret from everybody else. I'm genuinely curious. Was there a poll or something?

Explain how the Federal Reserve System can be Constitutional if, only the Congress of the U.S., which comprises of the Senate and the House of Representatives has the power to coin and issue our money supply and regulate the value thereof? [Article 1 Section 1 and Section 8] Nowhere, in the Constitution does it give Congress the power or authority to transfer any powers granted under the Constitution to a private corporation or, does it?

1) That wasn't my question. You explicitly stated that the Fed was improper for the not-constitutionally-related reason that the legislature and judiciary have failed to "heed the call of the people" for its dismantling, which necessarily implies that a majority of the citizenry wants it dismantled in the first place. I'm genuinely curious how you became aware of this silent majority. Was there a poll or something?



2) But since you brought up constitutionality out of the blue, I'll go ahead and bite. "Nowhere in the Constitution does it give Congress the power or authority to transfer any powers granted under the Constitution to a private corporation" you say? False. The first two Banks of the United States and the later Federal Reserve system were legislatively created and judicially upheld on the basis of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:

The Congress shall have power to...make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut....articlei.html

The implication of this Necessary and Proper Clause is that Congress is free to choose whatever means it finds most likely to succeed in accomplishing a power explicitly granted by the Constitution (such as the power to issue currency), and those means are up to and including delegating some regulatory authority to executive branch agencies and even independent agencies created by Congress. If Congress decided that an independent agency funding its budget from infusions by member banks that benefit from its services (note I said "independent agency," not "private corporation," which the Fed is not) would have higher degrees of economic expertise and transactional confidentiality than an element of the executive branch would have, then that delegation of authority is within its power under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Since you claim to be an aficionado of the Federalist Papers, which I doubt, I highly recommend that you re-read Madison's Federalist 44 expounding on the importance and intended meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause. I also recommend that you read pieces on the controversy surrounding the First Bank of the United States, which was ultimately created in 1791 by the same Founding Fathers you claim to revere. Finally, and most importantly, I recommend that you read every last letter of McCullough v. Maryland, in which the SCOTUS decided on the definitive interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause, which did allow Congress to delegate its constitutional authority to an independent agency or even corporate entity.

Much more has been written about this topic, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to sit and educate you on finer points of constitutional jurisprudence that many work their asses off to pay thousands of dollars to learn. I especially don't want to take the time when I already know you'll automatically write off anything you disagree with as mere "usurpation" by more "liberal" judges and politicians, even though Federalist 44, McCullough, and related texts originated from the same minds that had a hand in drafting the Constitution, almost two centuries before the word "liberal" even took on the distorted meaning it has today. In fact, I'll even predict that you think Marbury v. Madison was a wrongly decided usurpation of interpretive powers left to "the people," or if you haven't ever even read Marbury cover to cover (which is probably the case), I'm sure you'd automatically reject it if you did. Therefore, I'm sure the SCOTUS' interpretations of the Necessary and Proper Clause are meaningless to you anyway, because the SCOTUS has no power to interpret it in the first place, right? Or perhaps any sites reporting the verbatim text of SCOTUS decisions can just be disregarded as distortion by the "liberal media" and not what John Marshall really wrote, right? If you seriously think McCullough got the Necessary and Proper Clause totally wrong, or that Marbury gave the SCOTUS powers it shouldn't have had in the first place, will you at least be consistent and tell us all today that the FDIC, USPS, FNMA, GNMA, FAMC, FHLMC, FTC, SEC, CFTC, FEC, FCC, NLRB, FERC, and other "independent agencies" not part of the executive are all unconstitutional and must be dismantled immediately?


PLEASE NOTE THAT MANY SENTENCES IN MY POST ARE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY QUESTION MARKS. THIS MEANS THAT I'M ACTUALLY ASKING YOU FOR YOUR OPINION ON A SPECIFIC ISSUE, AND I AM HOPING FOR SPECIFIC ANSWERS IN RESPONSE TO THOSE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. IDEALLY, YOU MIGHT EVEN USE THE "QUOTE" FUNCTION TO IDENTIFY THE QUESTIONS TO WHICH YOU RESPOND IN A SEQUENTIAL FASHION, AS I HAVE. I EVEN NUMBERED MY POINTS TO MAKE THE QUOTING PROCESS EASIER FOR YOU. AGAIN, JUST TO BE 100% CRYSTAL CLEAR, I AM NOT NOT NOT ASKING YOU FOR A GENERALIZED RANT WHICH TOUCHES ON SOME QUESTIONS BUT NOT OTHERS, OR ON NO QUESTIONS AT ALL, BUT RATHER AN ANSWER TO EACH SPECIFIC SENTENCE THAT IS FOLLOWED BY A QUESTION MARK. JUST ANSWER EACH QUESTION DIRECTLY. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, I'M ****ING BEGGING YOU, JUST DIRECTLY RESPOND TO EACH SPECIFIC QUESTION WITHOUT RANTING IN A GENERAL WAY. PRETTY PRETTY PLEASE WITH A CHERRY ON TOP, JUST ANSWER MY QUESTIONS.

Does it matter that Jackson dismantled the 2nd bank because it was doing the exact same things that are happening now (though now both the pres and fed are doing it at the same time, read some history) [Panic of 1837].

No it does not, because dismantling that bank was a matter of policy, just like the failings of the Fed today are a matter of policy. In fact, as a strictly policy matter, I'd probably agree with you about the Fed more than you think. However, constitutionality is another issue entirely, and naturally you evade it entirely with this red herring. Figures.

[N]o, **** you, we swayed from the entire point of this thread. And as Lorizael seemed to have made clear to me before is that as long as we stay on topic he doesnt give a **** what you all say to me. So **** you, stay on topic, I won't say **** anymore unless it has to do with if the coup was legal or not. It was passed by their Supreme Court and Congress to remove the president of Honduras from office. 2 branches saw the unbalancing of power and moved to ensure the continuity of their freedoms and laws, they did what they had to do. Stick to this, **** everything else, you want to debate me in what is right and wrong on everything else then YOU start a new thread, or any of the hate monger sheeple that also despise me and everyone not on their side of the house.

You may not have called me names, slandered me, or questioned my knowledge but you are well on that path. I am leaving everything not to do with the legality of the coup to blow with the dust, as per Lorizael already saying he would prefer we stay on topic. Want to debate the legality of the private corporation/federal extension agency we call the Fed, make a new thread and we can butt heads there.

You'll note that YOU were the first person to mention the Fed in this thread, not me (don't believe me? just use the ctrl-F function on this thread for the word "Fed" and lo and behold, YOUR post #5 was the first to bring it up), so I'm not the one responsible for going off-topic. You are. The hypocrisy of you whining about it now is astounding. You'll also note that part of the post you ignored was completely on-topic, asking you what evidence you have to back up your bald-faced assertion that a majority of average Honduran citizens were opposed to the referendum. No, what two "branches" of government bureaucrats did is not evidence of that and is only correlative to your assumption, so I'm asking you how you really know what you said is true. How is that not relevant to the Honduran coup topic? Naturally you've avoided responding to that ON-TOPIC question, because you are full of ****. But fine, I'll gladly make a new thread on the tangent YOU started, just to watch you run and hide as usual.

[DaShi]

This had better be entertaining! I'm a busy man! :wiglaf:

[Zkribbler]

This had better be entertaining! I'm a busy man! :wiglaf:

BTW: the Federal Reserve is a federal agency. It was enacted by Congress; its Board members are government apppointees. It does not coin or print money.

You might be thinking of the Bank of the U.S. That was Hamilton's brainchild and was patterned after the Bank of England. It was essentially a private corporation which performed the function of today's U.S. Treasury Dept.

Jefferson was so incensed, he and Monroe founded the Republican Party [now known as the Democratic Party] to oppose it. The Bank was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It thrived until it cross swords with President Andrew Jackson during his re-election campaign. He killed it deader than a doornail.

[zakubandit]

To start, read the top of an American note. What agency's name is there?

The FED doesn't print money, it creates it or more along the lines of limits its creation in the lower banks. Money is not created by the Treasury, notes that honor the invisible funds are just pieces of paper, banks create money out of thin air. So cash is worthless since the gold value was eliminated. It is basically like me handing you a piece of paper that says $50 and my name signed on it, you have only my word that it is worth $50.

The Constitution allows for the government to coin money. This term is said to have been modified to accept printing of money, but this is open to debate. To coin money is to press gold or silver into coins and it is worth its real weight. The government is able to coin money, the Federal Reserve has been delegated to control the paper currencies value. If you look at the list of controlling banks of the Federal Reserve they are all privately owned banks, hence the private corporation that reports as a federal agency. The government does not, by word of the Constitution, have the power to delegate the pressing of coins to a non-government agency, so the Treasury still prints the money...but the Fed actually controls it. Loophole.

On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed by President Kennedy. This order basically stripped the Fed of its power of loaning money to the US gov with interest, with this order he was going to put the Fed out of business. This executive order has never been repealed, replaced, amended, or superseded by any executive order...meaning it is still valid. It says all sorts of great things, a fine point is that the gov can and will only issue silver certificates to the exact values of silver and silver bullion by the treasury. Money would be introduced backed only by what is physically held. The notes that were issued back then were inked in red and said United States Note on top. After November 22nd and JFK's assassination the red notes were removed from print and slowly drifted away into history. 99% of currency in circulation now reads Federal Reserve Note. This order would have killed the Fed, but instead he was killed and the order has since just been ignored.

xecutive Order 11110

AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289 AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:

SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended - (a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j): '(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption,' and (b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof. SECTION 2. The amendment made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.

JOHN F. KENNEDY
THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 4, 1963

This post is long enough, and answers part of why the petitions to abolish the 1913 Federal Reserve Act have so many signatures.

Let the flak fly.

[ZEE]

this thread will solve a lot of deep problems and make us all better, knowledgeable, and productive people in the future.

[Arrian]

Just out of curiousity, is it your belief that JFK was whacked b/c he opposed the Fed?

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

So cash is worthless

It's like you've never heard of the concepts of supply and demand... or basic capitalism.

This executive order has never been repealed, replaced, amended, or superseded by any executive order...meaning it is still valid.

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110

The Order was never directly reversed, but in 1987, Executive Order 12608 revoked the section that added by Executive Order 11110[1], essentially nullifying it.

EO 12608, signed by President Reagan superceeded EO 11110

Reagan
Kennedy

[Imran Siddiqui]

In addition:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/jfk.htm

E.O. 11,110 did not create authority to issue new silver certificates, it only affected who could give the order. The purpose of the order was to facilitate the reduction of certificates in circulation, not to increase them. In October 1964 the Treasury ceased issuing them entirely. The Coinage Act of 1965 (PL 89-81) ended the practice of using silver in most U.S. coins, and in 1968 Congress ended the redeemability of silver certificates (PL 90-29). E.O. 11,110 was never reversed by President Johnson and remained on the books until 1987 when there was a general cleaning-up of executive orders (E.O. 12,608, 9/9/87). However, by this time the remaining legislative authority behind E.O. 11,110 had been repealed by Congress with PL 97-258 in 1982.2

In summary, E.O. 11,110 did not create new authority to issue additional silver certificates. In fact, its intention was to ease the process for their removal so that small denomination Federal Reserve Notes could replace them in accordance with a law Kennedy himself signed. If Kennedy had really sought to reduce Federal Reserve power, then why did he sign a bill that gave the Fed still more power?

(emphasis added by the link)

Don't buy into conspiracy theories, son.

[zakubandit]

There are many theories about why JFK was taken out. This may have merit, money is power and powerful men thrive for more power. But what I believe about JFK's assassination is that he was taken out by a sniper for far more insidious reasons.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I can't wait for your theories on who was the real mastermind behind 9/11

[zakubandit]

The Order was never directly reversed, but in 1987, Executive Order 12608 revoked the section that added by Executive Order 11110[1], essentially nullifying it.

Nullified it, but did not reverse it. I admit I didn't know that part, but what exactly does that mean, reversed but not nullified?

[zakubandit]

Don't step in the bull**** Imran, 9-11 wasn't a conspiracy. Terrorism plain and simple.

[KrazyHorse]

The FED doesn't print money, it creates it or more along the lines of limits its creation in the lower banks. Money is not created by the Treasury, notes that honor the invisible funds are just pieces of paper, banks create money out of thin air. So cash is worthless since the gold value was eliminated. It is basically like me handing you a piece of paper that says $50 and my name signed on it, you have only my word that it is worth $50.

This makes no sense whatsoever. US currency is worth its face value in dollars by definition. IOUs are not. An IOU for an amount in dollars is a promise to exchange the IOU for currency. Currency ALREADY IS currency.

Dumbass.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Don't step in the bull**** Imran, 9-11 wasn't a conspiracy. Terrorism plain and simple.

I'm partial to the Kyle Brovlovsky theory advanced by Eric Cartman, but I can see the Cheney did it one as well.

After all, as someone said "There are many theories"

[Lorizael]

I'm partial to the Kyle Brovlovsky theory advanced by Eric Cartman, but I can see the Cheney did it one as well.

After all, as someone said "There are many theories"

Really?