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

[Solomwi]

I actually know some quantum finance. Not kidding.

Hence my last sentence . In all seriousness, I thought I remembered you posting something about quantum finance not too terribly long ago.

[zakubandit]

Darius, I was going to move on to answer your questions, but your cronies had oust me from any standing at all. Everyone seems to just love calling me stupid, but if you understand any of what I posted you would see A)KH and myself are on a similar line, his just doesn't hold intelligent balance, and B) I haven't said anything that isn't on the Fed website, banking websites, and from financial websites. I don't pull **** from my ass and say it's truth, I went and got definitions, facts, and terms from websites. A 1 dollar note itself is not worth $1 of money. The note itself tells the bank that the note is solely by faith of the government worth $1 in credit. It is not worth anything at all, because our money is not backed by a physical object. It is not worth anything except invisible credit on a computer screen.

Is any of that clear enough? Real money is note in cash, it is in the faith of the government, meaning that one day of the government fell apart that all that cash would mean a lot of nothing because there would be no one to say, "yea that note is debt that we credit." Clear? Yes? No?

Actual figures are that there is only about 2.6 billion dollars accounted for cash notes in rotation, but there is actually 10000 billion in the actually country. Or so the Fed has posted on the M3 scale. SO ****-wads that are failing the attempts to debunk me. Cash notes are not worth anything, they are a physical manifestation of the invisible money that is on the books of banks and the Fed.

I doubt an agreement is anywhere in sight. Whatever, **** it, go read the Fed website yourselves. I'm done arguing with you guys. KH, your just ****ing pathetic, with every smart thing you say you have an extra idiotic statement stuck to it. So whatever, **** all of you, nothing I posted on this thread was from the top of my head, everything was from facts collected. I am not a finance person, I just collected facts on this. You think what I said is wrong, then you had better go talk to someone at a bank and ask what that green **** paper you carry around is in by definition.

[SlowwHand]

KH, your just ****ing pathetic, with every smart thing you say you have an extra idiotic statement stuck to it.

This is what's known in Congress as a rider.

[Kuciwalker]

A 1 dollar note itself is not worth $1 of money.

A 1 dollar note is $1 of money. That's the entire point of moving off the gold standard.

Tell me, if a dollar note is not worth $1 of 'money', what is worth $1 of 'money'?

[Darius871]

Darius, I was going to move on to answer your questions, but your cronies had oust me from any standing at all.

My "cronies"? So it's a conspiracy now? What makes you think I care what anyone else says besides yourself?

[zakubandit]

the dollar is actually a claim against the assets of the American people.

I already said what it is worth, but does that make it any clearer? Holy ****, read!

[Darius871]

A 1 dollar note itself is not worth $1 of money. The note itself tells the bank that the note is solely by faith of the government worth $1 in credit. It is not worth anything at all, because our money is not backed by a physical object. It is not worth anything except invisible credit on a computer screen.

Is any of that clear enough? Real money is note in cash, it is in the faith of the government, meaning that one day of the government fell apart that all that cash would mean a lot of nothing because there would be no one to say, "yea that note is debt that we credit." Clear? Yes? No?

Actual figures are that there is only about 2.6 billion dollars accounted for cash notes in rotation, but there is actually 10000 billion in the actually country. Or so the Fed has posted on the M3 scale. SO ****-wads that are failing the attempts to debunk me. Cash notes are not worth anything, they are a physical manifestation of the invisible money that is on the books of banks and the Fed.

I doubt an agreement is anywhere in sight. Whatever, **** it, go read the Fed website yourselves.

Let's suppose, hypothetically, that I agreed with 100% of the above. What does any of it have to do with the post that started the thread, which was strictly limited to constitutionality of a particular agency, not whether said agency enacts sound policy? Weren't you the one who chastised me about staying on topic?

[zakubandit]

Darius

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:

Congress may not delegate its legislative power

...clearly violates the Constitution's separation-of-powers principle-in particular, what has become known as the non delegation doctrine, which states that Congress may not delegate its legislative power to any other entity, including the Cabinet departments of the executive branch. Article I, section 1 of the Constitution states, "All legislative Powers ... shall be vested in a Congress." A plain reading of that text shows that lawmaking is for the legislative branch...

Congress itself, not an executive official, must be accountable for the consequences of laws that Congress puts in place. That tenet has been a cornerstone of our Constitution for more than two centuries. John Locke got it right in his Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690): The separation-of-powers principle means that "the legislative [branch] cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands." The legislative power, wrote Locke, is "to make laws, and not to make legislators."

Facts

[Darius871]

Congress may not delegate its legislative power

I don't see what this is quoted from.

...clearly violates the Constitution's separation-of-powers principle-in particular, what has become known as the non delegation doctrine, which states that Congress may not delegate its legislative power to any other entity, including the Cabinet departments of the executive branch. Article I, section 1 of the Constitution states, "All legislative Powers ... shall be vested in a Congress." A plain reading of that text shows that lawmaking is for the legislative branch...

I don't see what this is quoted from.

Congress itself, not an executive official, must be accountable for the consequences of laws that Congress puts in place. That tenet has been a cornerstone of our Constitution for more than two centuries. John Locke got it right in his Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690): The separation-of-powers principle means that "the legislative [branch] cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands." The legislative power, wrote Locke, is "to make laws, and not to make legislators."

I don't see what this is quoted from. But to the extent that it mentions Locke, I wasn't aware that he rose from the grave, crossed an ocean, and attended the Constitutional Convention. Next.

[Zevico]

Is talking with a sock puppet really so entertaining?

[Kuciwalker]

I already said what it is worth, but does that make it any clearer? Holy ****, read!

OK. Can you describe what would comprise 1 dollar's worth of "assets of the American people"?

Like, can I exchange it for a piece of a bridge or something?

[zakubandit]

Yes Kuci, you can take a years pay and go by the GW Bridge.

Ask stupid questions get stupid answers.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Here's a thousand dollars, you bastards. Now WHERE'S MY MONEY?

Ok, that made me laugh, hard. I think I woke the wife...

[Zevico]

As to 'no delegation of legislative power', the answer is that historically the English Parliament was always permitted to delegate its legislative power to the executive, subject to the proviso that this power could be withdrawn at the legislature's discretion. The American Constitution is in turn based on that assumption. However apparently the Americans have placed some additional limitations on this. No idea what they are though--I just remember the Australian High Court mentioning them by way of comparison in the case that determined this matter finally in Australia.

Whatever its limits, the principle is sound and necessary for good government. I'll give an example. Suppose the legislature decides to enact a law for the acquisition and maintenance of public parks. The main provisions are for compulsory acquisition of land (to create the parks), and severe fines for logging the land (to protect them). That's fine. But why should the legislature bother to agree on the application fee for a camping permit on national parks? Or change the legislation every few months accordingly? Cumulatively, these small matters would impede Congress (or Parliament) from going about the task of law-making. Hence the need to delegate powers to the executive. The key is to remember that these powers can always be withdrawn, and executive acts, or executive 'laws', inconsistent with Acts of Congress or the American Constitution are invalid. In short the sovereignty of Parliament is retained by way of these restrictions (and additional ones however they apply to American law).

The only limit on the delegation of legislative power in Australia is 'abdication'. An example--the South Australian parliament introduced a a certain law, affecting a stadium ground. A section of this law couldn't be changed without the consent of the stadium owner. The SA Parliament then introduced a law without the consent of the owner. The amending law was valid, despite the consent clause in the original law, which was held to be of no effect (see West Lakes v South Australia).

Abdication of power is impermissible, except where the abdication is to the body representing the legislature--i.e. the people by referendum.
Again, American law apparently differs in some way in that it imposes additional limits. No idea what they are, but the principle (however restricted it might be), is sound regardless.

[KrazyHorse]

I doubt an agreement is anywhere in sight.

That's because, in addition to being stupid and ignorant you're also pigheaded.

Whatever, **** it, go read the Fed website yourselves. I'm done arguing with you guys. KH, your just ****ing pathetic, with every smart thing you say you have an extra idiotic statement stuck to it. So whatever, **** all of you, nothing I posted on this thread was from the top of my head, everything was from facts collected.

Again, see above. You've now proven that in addition to not knowing how the US Constitution works you also don't know how currency works.

I am not a finance person, I just collected facts on this.

You collected a bunch of spurious nonsense, strung it together in the most worthless possible way and then posted it. It's like performance art.

You think what I said is wrong, then you had better go talk to someone at a bank and ask what that green **** paper you carry around is in by definition.

Errr....you mean....money?