Please Support the Constitution Club   

 Click Here

Did Congress violate the provisions of the Constitution is 1913 when they voted in favor the the Federal Reserve Act? Did Congress have the authority to grant a privately owned bank the right to issue our money?

If Congress has the authority to issue its own money why are we borrowing money and paying over 2.6 trillion dollars a year in interest?

Please share your opinions by posting your comments in the space provided.

What is Your Opinion

Views: 805

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Pat, I really think we are talking around the same issue.  I state, we have no Sovereignty anymore because of an abusive Federal Government and that is the thing the vast majority of so called patriots see today.  

They want Federal Government out of their lives.  They want Limited Government.  They want a real currency based upon the wealth of  a nation rather than a debt based currency that extends the debt until bankruptcy; where we are today.   The 16th Amendment is a farce perpetrated upon the people for the purpose of destroying this nation and they have done well in their aspirations. 

So, what Jurisdiction does the Federal Government have that is not extended from the Citizens in temporary Representation?  

I say they have none; especially when they do not follow the Constitution.  Last August we had 46 Senators including two from my state that voted to give our 2nd Amendment away to the United Nations.  That my friend is Treason (with a capital T).   Yet, they are still in Congress and voting against the Constitution every chance they get.  

So my Sovereignty is only my desire; my dream.  I am a citizens of a country that has been taken over by tyrants who are treasonous from their very presence on Capitol Hill.

Okay, I am extremely tired as I never sleep anymore.  Too many problems from Agent Orange and Quinine complications that have made my retirement years totally miserable.  

So, I will contemplate what you have said this week when I do get some rest.  It does happen on occasion.   However I will not change my mind on the Federal Reserve.  They are not Federal and they have no business handling the currency of the united States.

Michael D. Small ... "we have no Sovereignty anymore because of an abusive Federal Government"

The People are the Supreme Sovereign ... but only as they choose to exist in that capacity.  To realize it means revocation of all Washington's City's so-called 'benefits', 'grant' of citizen status under the 14th Amendment, 'residence' under exclusive Congressional district jurisdictions for it's special 'protection' ... and all the rest.

Government doesn't ... force ... those things on people, they allow the status quo to go on. Like moaning slaves in the field-shack, they rattle their chains in 'protest, when to free themselves is to ... first ...prove the Fraud of the contract binding them.

All People start out under Common Law jurisdiction. To be removed from it, a contract must be willingly agreed to ... in full knowledge of Material Facts ... therein. That's the deadly flaw in government's cases, because it ... never ... discloses those Material Facts of fundamental change to folks' removal from their Private jurisdictions and their States' Constitutional protections.

That Fraud needs to be raised in nearly ... every case ... before ... every court ... across America, at the first instance ... before ... litigation is even joined.

That will go farther than a hundred 'million patriot marches' on the Capitol.

OK YOU TWO tell me how to totaly divorce the pretend government and get or continue to recieve the Social Security that I've paid into all theses years. I'm 71 and while I do have a part time job with the county I'm not exactly prime for employment.

James Shelton ... "how to totaly divorce the pretend government and get or continue to recieve the Social Security"

You can't ... have ... cake and ... eat ... it too.

To paraphrase Sam Adams, you're stuck rattling your chains in the faint hope of disturbing your Master's conscience.

Apart from that, try packing old rag under the manacles.

Wow, somebody actually described something close to constitutional intent.

Michael D. Small wrote

"Also, the Constitution can be amended just as long as the Amendment is in full agreement with the Constitution"

The infiltrators are so afraid of Article V that Mr. Fields won't even admit it is the first right he can actually use.  And the notion that free speech has the purpose of assuring information vital to survival seems as though it might be alien to him.  Free speech is abridged, which is why we have the problem we now have.

If Americans unify using prime constitutional intent, they can test each other for sincerity as well as all encumbants and candidates.  Some Americans have been so influenced by the infiltrators, they are as effective as them at undermining American efforts to restore constitutional government under the 1787 constitution,

Congress and the scotus has not been constitutional since 1867.  The only way to make them so is through Article V, by states citizens using constitutional intent to purify state legislations, then with 3/4 of such states, repair the damage done since the civil war, and correct the deficiencies intentionally included that weakened America after the usurpations following the civil war.

It is ludicrous to consider entering an Article V without proper preparation to assure all amendments have constitutional intent.  These 3 issues need to be corrected by amendment before a general convention proceeds.

1)End the abridging of free speech

2)Secure the vote

3)Campaign finance reform

Jon Roland ... "It is a myth that the 1913 Federal Reserve Act established fiat currency."

And, exactly like the 'Emancipation Proclamation', the 'Legal Tender Act' too, was Lawful only in and under exclusive jurisdictions of the United States  ... not ... in and under those of the original, ordinary States, or free Citizens comprising them.

Understanding this nexus, informs us that the 'Legal Tender Cases' or 'Federal Reserve Act', are as superfluous a concern as all other similar municipal legislation for the D.C. city-state.

"Rerum ordo confunditur, si unicuique jurisdictio non servetur. The order of things is confounded if every one preserves not his jurisdiction." 4 Co. Inst. Proem.

Very True, the Legal Tender Cases were unnecessary and in contradiction to the requirements of the US Treasury to be the sole provider of currency for the United States.  

The Fact remains, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and may not be changed, amended, and no laws may be made that do not comply completely with the US Constitution.  They must be in complete agreement and to argue otherwise is to declare this Constitutional Republic to be a Democracy and I hope to God that it never becomes a Democracy.

Michael D. Small ... "The Fact remains, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land"

Michael, it's dismaying that you're not allowing yourself to comprehend this arrangement. 'The Land' is the original, ordinary jurisdictions of the States.

Congress doesn't very often act under those jurisdictions (which the damnable 'district' state legislatures play along with). It acts in and under the municipal jurisdiction of the D.C. city-state, extended by means of the 'Whiskey Tax districts'.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” --John Adams

Adams said this because a religious People intuitively understand that completely invisible forces act on reality. To dismiss them is to fall into confounding ruin.

I do not agree with John Adams statement.  The Constitution and Birth Rights belong to all human beings.  It may have been written by those of religious bearing, but birth rights are not strictly for the religious.  

All men who believe in Sovereignty, liberty, Independence, Freedom have just as many rights as those who go to their choice of Church.

As far as land and property, I am in full agreement with Thomas Jefferson, but that has been taken away from the citizens simply because citizens sleep and demand of Government when Government has nothing to give to citizens unless it steals it from other citizens.  

The Idea of Property tax was originated in this country by a gentleman from Oregon.  Don't remember his name, but before his time there were no property taxes.  

A man's home was his castle.  Today he pays rent to government for the privilege of living on the land he works to pay for.

Again, the Federal and State Governments have traitors within that collude to steal all property away from citizens.  

Since the Real Estate belonging to the United States is also the real estate belonging to the people and the jurisdiction of the states lies within the borders of their respective states, why does the Federal Government even get involved in property and other than for control of which is unconstitutional. 

Yes, I am argumentative at this point because I have watched my country being destroyed from the inside for far too long and far too many citizens have no clue as to what is wrong or what has been happening. 

The Federal Government needs to be restricted once again by downsizing and keeping within the limits of Limited Government.  

As George Washington Stated, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force.  Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."  

I am not a student of law.  I like to profess a certain level of common sense and I firmly believe that NO LAWYERS should ever be allowed to serve in Congress.   These positions should be restricted and limited to the general public to serve their country and then go home. 


Michael D. Small  ... "The Constitution and Birth Rights belong to all human beings."

You're so intent on showing off your knowledge of Constitutional principals, that you're refusing to recognize that they don't apply under a foreign jurisdiction.

The instant you acquiesce to status as a 'citizen of the United States', you trade Natural Rights for Civil Rights.

“There are, then, two classes of citizens; one of the United States, and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person without the other, as in the case of a resident of the District of Columbia”. --Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 48 So. 788, 790, 791, 160 Ala. 155

But Pat, though what you say is correct, each person who serves the Federal Government is in effect both.  Yet, they are not subjects of the Federal Government because the Federal Government belongs to the people.  Now that may appear argumentative also, but then I have not read all these decisions  and court documents.  I don't believe it necessary in order to study the Constitution as I don't think the average person needs to go beyond understanding the Constitution as the Founders intended. 

Are people here to study law or to understand the wording of our founding fathers?  

If I had the time, I might enjoy taking your references and study why the decisions were made by the courts.  However, it seems most of the statements leading to the decisions are self evident. However, they do not appear to be leading to the understand of the Constitution and what is wrong with this country today; ie. the Federal Reserve - A private Corporation dealing with Fiat money under a Fractional Banking system that would send you and me to prison. 

However, the Federal Government has usurped the Sovereignty of the States and therefore, we have no rights other than to claim the rights of the Original / Organic Constitution. 

jurisdiction is a legal term.  The Constitution was written for the citizen and the law books were written for lawyers.  Lawyers have never been popular within society because they can twist anything to fit their own personal goals and designs.  

We have libraries of laws on the books that can be quoted but i wonder how many can really stand up to the rigors of acceptability by the Constitution. 

Men make laws and none could state these designs any better than Frederick Bastiat, "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it. " 

The Constitution is Not Negotiable!

Michael D. Small ... "Yet, they are not subjects of the Federal Government because the Federal Government belongs to the people"

Governments are not objects of Property. Therefore, they don't 'belong' to ... anyone. They're ... authorizations ... of the Supreme Sovereign entity.

More tape-loop repetition of memorized phrases only relevant to original jurisdiction independent Citizens of States with Lawful Domicile standing ... whom are the Supreme Sovereign.

Until you face the enemy, rather than your idealized construct of it, you're dooming yourself to defeat at its hands. Sun Tzu counseled us to 'Know your enemy as you know yourself'. You're willfully ignoring this crucial advise.

Since 1871, the "United States" has been a completely independent city-state Municipal government initiated as the Government of the District of Columbia. That foreign government adopted ... part ... of the 1787 Trust Constitution, minus its de jure 13th Amendment, as its Charter. The 'Constitution' to which you refer and that under which Washington City operates are two distinct documents.

As a 'citizen of the United States", you're ... not dealing ... with the 1787 Trust Constitution, you're dealing with its truncated DC city-state Charter.

If you don't drop the 'patriot rhetoric' and approach this thing with cool, un-emotional logic instead, you're destined to run headlong into a solid (legal) brick wall.

No one can restore what's been commandeered, without the knowledge you've accumulated, because we must know what had come before and faithfully re-construct it. On that count you're arguing commendably. Nevertheless, where you want to go and where you are ... must first ... be ascertained, or you'll remain forever lost.

RSS

© 2018   Created by Keith Broaders.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service