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

[zakubandit]

179

[SlowwHand]

What if you buy a dollar's worth of apples? Is your dollar consistent?

[Kuciwalker]

No, the rate of exchange between dollars and apples (also known as THE PRICE OF APPLES) is non-constant

[SlowwHand]

What about the price of tea in China?

[zakubandit]

Is the dollar consistent? Ha. How much did a dollar get you 10 years ago compared to now?

[zakubandit]

I haven't bought tea here, but in restaurants its like what the US with water...free and they refill it constantly.

[Kuciwalker]

Is the dollar consistent? Ha. How much did a dollar get you 10 years ago compared to now?

Thank you for demonstrating that you've heard of inflation.

[SlowwHand]

I'm talking now, in the United States. Take 150k to a lot of places and you can get a fine home. Take it to California and they say thanks for the down payment. Of course, your taxes and all else will be hosed, but hey, it's California.

[zakubandit]

Well I have been earning and living for a while now. I remember when I first started driving and $1 for a gallon was expensive...last time I had to put gas in my car it was at $3.33 where I was in CA. Used to be that you could get cheeseburgers from McD's on sunday for $.63, those don't even exist anymore. Times have changed, and with it we get less for our money. That's why I love the Chinese economy. I will pay around $2000 a year fro my fully furnished 1st floor 3 bedroom apartment, compared to the $13000 a year I paid for my crap-hole empty all tile apartment on a military base in CA.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm talking now, in the United States. Take 150k to a lot of places and you can get a fine home. Take it to California and they say thanks for the down payment. Of course, your taxes and all else will be hosed, but hey, it's California.

Funny thing, houses in different places having different values. This has what to do with the dollar?

[Zkribbler]

The member banks, that control the Fed, are private banks hold stock in the Fed. So in actuality the government gave complete control of our currency affairs to a group of private bankers with a group of appointed representatives to be the face of the Fed. They have the power to do whatever they want with our currency. Only the government, department of Treasury, has the authority to coin money, but the Fed was given authority to CONTROL money. Anyone get what I mean? PRIVATE bankers, government power given to them, not constitutional...anyone?

1) What makes you think the Fed has issued stock?
2) What makes you think that private banks own all this stock?

And constitutional? Of course it is. The Supreme Court ruled back in the 18th Century that the Bank of the U.S. was constitutional, and even-this-vile-Fed-conspiracy-which-you-describe is less independent than was the Bank of the U.S., so ipso facto the Fed is constitutional.

[Darius871]

So that right there says that the government in 1913 delegated powers over to the Fed. The gov does not have authority to delegate powers to agencies that are not directly under control of the government.

Nobody here denied that Congress delegated certain limited powers to the Fed. The question was WHY this would violate the Constitution, and you still haven't offered any legal authority backing up the argument that it does, aside from three brief excerpts from unknown sources you didn't even cite. What were they? Please clue me in. I'm genuinely curious.

The point is the Fed is run by private banks, all the Fed investors are private banks. ... The member banks, that control the Fed, are private banks hold stock in the Fed.

Since when do the terms of that "stock" give member banks "CONTROL" over actual Fed policy? It is less analogous to freely transferable corporate securities or "stock" as you know it than to a simple "buy in" to benefits of Fed system membership. Nominally the stock only gives member banks the right to Fed services in exchange for their own monetary contributions, whereas "control" remains vested in the Board of Governors, whom are appointed by the President and subject to Congress' complete control. The fact that member banks are "private" is completely irrelevant if they have no legal control. Have you even read the Federal Reserve Act?

So in actuality the government gave complete control of our currency affairs to a group of private bankers with a group of appointed representatives to be the face of the Fed. They have the power to do whatever they want with our currency.

No, they do NOT have "complete control." CONGRESS HAS CONTROL, which is statutorily delegated for purposes of execution, but can be modified or entirely retaken at any time. Congress could pass a bill tomorrow mandating a specific CPI goal or a printing freeze, for instance, and the Fed would have no choice but to follow it. This means that the Fed has no "control," Congress does. How often Congress chooses to exercise that control is a question of policy, not what's constitutional. As mentioned in Zevico's eloquent post in the last page that you completely ignored, there is a huge difference between delegation, which is constitutional, and abdication, which is never constitutional. Do you understand the imoprtant distinction between these two concepts? I suppose it's a stupid question since you've already demonstrated more than once that you do not, but do you understand the distinction now at least?

[Saras]

zaku, i'm a buyer in size (read: trillions) for your dollars at 20 eurocents each. PM me.

[Tuberski]

For the same reason that an apple is worth an apple.

And that is?

ACK!

[DaShi]

An apple is worth 1 Newton. 1 Newton is worth 1 dollar. Therefore, you can measure dollars in the amount of force they exert. For example, a punch in the face can be worth anywhere from 10 to 4,000 dollars. FACT!