mAximo

mAximo 9 months ago

3 points to clarify that (constitutional) money isn't credit: 1. under the Constitution, there's no liability for a debt unless made in terms of gold & silver coin; 2. under federal law, FRNs are only legal tender for "debts, public charges, taxes & dues"; 3. acceptance of FRNs for goods & services is only compulsory under state law in those States having such laws, according to the Treasury:
http://www.treasury.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml
I'll let others compare & contrast between those 3, and determine the consequences.

mAximo 9 months ago

Statements like Bubya's or the Flynns precisely illustrate the irrational belief-systems of Freemasons & Jesus-freaks who dominated the Constitutional Convention. (There were no Jews, and few if any Catholics or Anglicans.) W/regard to Bubya's statement: since when do pieces of paper have damnable eternal souls? W/regard to the Flynn's: the Framers were only Revisionists, not founders since the Union was founded in 1781 at the earliest with ratification of the Articles, and at the latest in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris from the British perspective. The Constitution was explicit in perfecting an existing Union; continuing all existing engagements as if under the Articles. Thus, the Bank of North America was our 1st de facto central bank, a private bank "ordained" by Congress, and chartered by a few States. It did not catch on in all, and even had its charter in PA revoked for 2 years. It is forgotten, along with non-Freemasons, such as Robert Morris, our Superintendent of Finance who owned shares in its predecessor, and John Hanson, our 1st President authorised to wield the Great Seal of the United States, who signed the order ordaining the Bank of N.America. Instead, the irrational minds have replaced them in our time with high-degree Freemasons: Benjamin Franklin as the Father of our Paper Money, George Washington as our 1st President. The methods used to perpetuate such mythology is a classic case study in psychopathology, e.g. rewriting history by inventing hair-splitting terms that were not in use at the time: President of the Congress of the Confederation, etc.

mAximo 9 months ago

A number of myths have managed to creep into Web of Debt: "16th Amendment doesn't overrule Pollock", or the Pollock decision up till then "declaring general income tax unconstitutional"; or Ben Franklin as "the Father of Paper Money," when he at most was the Printer of it. Nobody of that era ever called him that. The cornerstone-layer of our 1st central bank, Robert Morris was given that title, at least for the US, otherwise the founder of the Banque General and the Mississippi Co, John Law. Instead, Franklin is on the $100 bill because he was a Mason admitted to the highest degrees, like Washington. Other personages on FRNs are those mocked by Masons, if not assassinated.
Bubya was on the right track that the Constitution is a God-damned piece of paper: it requires one to swear an oath to it. The Jesus-freak Framers were prohibited by Jesus from doing so, which is why they made provision for an affirmation instead.
The Framers who wanted to swear such an oath were Masons, not Jesus-freaks, intent on eventual institutional supremacy--if not "divine world gov't"--via Article 2 of its Draft, or as in notes of the secret debates envisioning a national gov't with supreme legislative, judicial and executive powers. A blind Daughter of the American Revolution, a descendant of Washington's freed slaves in possession of historic Masonic documents, did verify this publicly. Such Framers do not deserve to be called Founding Fathers. She implied that they were Founding Con-artists, due to the fact that the Bill of Rights was added to promote "con"fidence. Jack & Margy Flynn went so far as to call them "Founding Traitors". Such Framers also put in an international treaty loophole making anything to the contrary in the Constitution "notwithstanding" so that anyone who swore an oath to the Constitution, stabbed in the back all those who had died thinking that they were fighting for "Free & Independent States". This is akin to the treachery of Masonic oaths vis-a-vis one's family members.

mAximo 9 months ago

Creation of credit out of nothing is a problem. Money isn't credit. The 1948 Winston Dictionary defines constitutional money as gold & silver coin. Thus, if you are not tendered money for a loan, then there arises no liability for a debt. As mentioned on the Treasury's website under differences between FRNs & US Notes, the law only makes FRNs legal tender for debts, and not for goods & services, e.g. the extension of credit out of thin air. The exponential growth of compound interest even at 4% is an argument against usury on money, but not on credit-out-of-nothing, as 4% of something backed by nothing is still nothing, even when compounded.

mAximo 9 months ago

Like most lawyers, Ellen will use terms beyond the literal sense or apply legal techniques of business contracts to a 'social contract'. Thus a State may "create money" to create credit rather than coin gold & silver; or force the central gov't to wear its other hat on a line-item basis, rather than as a whole. Article 7 of the Constitution is explicit that the central gov't must wear two hats for any State that wants to be a member of the Union under the terms of the Articles of Confederation. If any State repeals its ratification of the Constitution, and subsequently appoints anyone in its Senate delegation for more than 3 years in any 6 year term, I'll be happy to march into their Statehouse and tell their legislatures to repeal them, or file a writ of mandamus in the State Supreme Court if Puerto Rico becomes such a State in the meantime. If the Senators in question then refuse to obey such orders, then I'll be happy to go to Congress to tell them to get out. In any case, if a State kills the 'new' Constitution for the 'more perfect Union', it defaults back to its status under the old constitution: the Articles of Confederation & Perpetual Union. Therefore, any such State loses its representation in the House, while winning back the right to appoint its delegation in the Senate without having to get other States to repeal the 17th amendment.
However, after a power had been delegated to Congress under the Articles, Congress couldn't lose that power after the ratification of the Constitution, given that a major goal was to expand the power of central gov't. This intent was clearly expressed in Article 2 of the Draft Constitution. Therefore, Congress still has the express power to emit bills on the credit of the United States.

mAximo 9 months ago

Do you have the courage to walk into a law library and read? If so, pull U.S. Code Title 1 off the shelf, and after the Declaration of Independence, you'll see the Articles of Confederation & Perpetual Union. In Article IX you'll read: "The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to...borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the United States." Although the Constitution altered the Articles, it never repealed them, otherwise Article 7 wouldn't have made allowance for the Union to wear two hats: one for States ratifying the Constitution; another for States preferring to remain under the Articles. Thus, Ellen is right that Congress can create debt-free greenbacks, although not because it's an implied power under the Constitution, but an express power under the Articles, which it exercised soon after submitting them to the States for ratification, as if that was just a formality.

mAximo 9 months ago

After considering the comments, I agree that central gov't shouldn't engage in retail banking. However, the Constitution forbids state central banks such as the Bank of N.Dakota from emitting their own banknotes, a power delegated to Congress in Article IX of the Articles of Confederation, and still in force, as found in the hardcopy of USC Title 1 in any law library. A gov't-owned alternative needs a currency independent of commercial demand, so forcing the Treasury to issue US Treasury notes for State central banks to use in it. The US already has a 'central bank' called the Government Development Bank, but it uses FRNs rather its own greenbacks, and only operates in Puerto Rico where there are community (Popular) banks. It did not allow subprime mortgages there, so there's no foreclosure crisis, and housing prices haven't gone down. It still has a systemic fault of being able to dry up the supply of affordable credit for businesses, and driving up their interest rates, which wouldn't happen if there were a different currency for public uses.

mAximo 9 months ago

I voted against this because it's unamerican. If the private sector wants its banking system to be an unregulated casino, that's their problem. What this idea does is to make their problem OUR problem even more than it already is. While I agree in having gov't-owned community banks, it should be in a completely separate system from the private Federal Reserve System, and use US Treasury Notes, rather than Federal Reserve Notes as its dollar. This country fought the Revolutionary & Civil Wars using gov't bank notes alongside private bank notes, or even foreign currency, such as Spanish silver dollars, all as legal tender, AND THEY DIDNT HAVE computers or calculators. They probably were able to calculate the conversions in their heads.

mAximo 9 months ago

Had Obama been born in Kenya, he could easily avoid this mess by claiming that he was born at home in Oahu, and so explain why there's no long-from Certificate. Instead he lied about which hospital he was born in, not unlike M:Cain, when the chances of getting caught in the lie were high. Perhaps his MO includes being a traitor. Or maybe he wants to divert attention from the fact that his mama's mama was a bank executive, that most of his largest campaign contributions came from banks, and that he's giving banks 100 cents on the dollar for bonds they hold in Chrysler, while only giving pennies on the dollar to everyone else. He's much smarter than M:Cain or Baby Bush, so there must be a reason for him not telling a better lie.

mAximo 9 months ago

now I know you're just another another gringo liar. I never used any key fact about M:Cain, other than his own lie asserted decades ago. (You obviously aren't old enough to remember that he's supposed to be a war hero for being the guest of honor at the Hanoi Hilton). I also never used it to validate anything, never mind any speculation of Obama being born in Hawaii. He might have been born in Hawaii, rather than Oahu, dumbass. Get a map, if not a clue. I only pointed out the fact that both lied about the hospitals that they claimed to have been born in. The only hospitals mentioned for Obama were in Oahu. I did not rule out the possibility that he was born in Hawaii, just that no hospital in Oahu has a record that Obama was born there. You also lied that M:Cain was born in Panama, when he was born in the Canal Zone. You obviously aren't old enough to remember that once was US territory - if it had adopted the Constitution in the meantime as had Puerto Rico in the 1950s, then M:Cain would be native-born; otherwise he acquired his citizenship via his parents. If his parents had given him up for adoption to Panamanians in the Canal Zone, he would not be able to acquire US citizenship unless it had been fully incorporated into the US, as was PR. Children of Panamanian parents weren't native-born US citizens for having been born in the Canal Zone at any time, so why should M:Cain? The fact that the Senate had to make an exception for him is the exception that proves the rule.

mAximo 9 months ago

From the Certification, it is clear that it was based on a sworn statement from one of his parents TO the registrar, because those statements require only reporting the Hour of Birth, which is SOP for registering births at home, rather than the Time of Birth. This would explain why no hospital in Oahu has a record of the birth. Since it is a lie that Obama was born in a hospital, it's likely that it's also a lie that he was born in Oahu.
While we're on the subject, it's also lie that M:Cain was born on-base in a military hospital, when that hospital wasn't built until years later.

mAximo 9 months ago

As Tip O'Neill said: "all politics is local" which is why "there is no political solution to the problems of this nation." This implies that there should be no political parties at the federal level, which was the case under the Articles of Confederation, which made State legislatures appoint & fund their congressional delegations.

mAximo 9 months ago

The Law of Nations by Emerich de Vattel is not binding on interpreting the Constitution, which was entirely written in English, from the perspective of the free system of English laws nor traditional common law.by those who at one time were English. Emerich wasn't English, and wasn't writing in English nor from the perspective of the free system of English laws nor traditional common law. Thus, his writings have less bearing on the meaning of the Constitution than Webster's first dictionary. As for Joseph Story's quote, it applies better to Obama's mother, than to M:Cain. Nobody is arguing that he or his parents lost citizenship as a result of living in the Canal Zone - at the time not under the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights - just like Puerto Rico then, as the Balzac decision ruled. Yet there are those who argue that she did because she had lived in Kenya while still a minor. I am arguing that Obama's parentage, including subsequent adoption by an Indonesian, is irrelevant, because the 18th century definition of 'natural born' is 'native born' just as 'natural language' was defined as 'native language'.

mAximo 9 months ago

Thank you. Until now I didn't realise that the normal 'long form' birth certificate IS a Certificate of Live Birth as sworn by a state official, whereas the 'short form' is a Certification of Live Birth as sworn by one of the parents TO a state official.

mAximo 9 months ago

In the language of the 18th century, natural was a synonym of native. Thus 'natural language' meant native language, as explicitly stated in the first Webster's Dictionary, which also gives acquired as well as artificial as antonyms of natural. This implies that 'natural born' meant 'native born' AND that M:Cain isn't natural born, since he was born in a U.S. territory that in the meantime didn't adopt the Constitution. It thereby doesn't matter if he also was eligible to acquire citizenship via his parents, if the concept involved is strictly 'jus soli.' One thing is certain: if M:Cain had won, nobody here would be asking to verify his eligibility, even though his citizenship was acquired rather than native. Had his parents given him up for adoption in Panama, he would not have been able to acquire US citizenship after becoming an adult, and perhaps earlier. This typifies the usual practical difference between natural born and acquired citizenship, and needs to be enforced consistently.

mAximo 9 months ago

it's been done before in other countries. Monday is very popular for such strikes

mAximo 9 months ago

the moderator owes you an explanation

mAximo 9 months ago

Here's a link to HR 1207:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Transparency_Act
Ending back the Fed is the WRONG WAY to taking back the power to create money:
1. We will overpay for all toxic assets on their balance sheet;
2. They'll undervalue all obligations to other banks (gold leases, currency swaps, etc.)
3. So it will be more looting of the Treasury to enrich the Fed's private shareholders, as guaranteed by the Federal Reserve Act. (The banksters were smart enough to put in a poison pill provision.)
We could do to the Fed what happened to our 1st private central bank: go into competition with it, when State banks were chartered to compete with the Bank of North America. The modern version is the Bank of North Dakota - the DBA name for the State of ND - but the Constitution prohibits it from emitting dollar bills, and coining money, so it is required to get Congress to do so for it via their own banks, one of which has already been chartered in Puerto Rico: The Government Development Bank, so we don't have to wait for them to recharter the Reconstruction Development Bank in DC. Such banks in federal territories are constitutional pursuant to Art.4 Sec.3, and necessary to implement federal monetary policy and for State banks to create greenbacks - neither should be in the hands of a private Fed, who should remain in business, but only to run the system "evolved" by private national banks - Otherwise we might as well nationalise Las Vegas.

mAximo 9 months ago

For starters, the bureaucracy could enforce the laws on the books, rather than making a visible effort to do so by selectively enforcing them against political enemies. And not to come whining to Congress for more power & funding when some atrocity happens under their noses.

mAximo 9 months ago

You deserve an explanation at the very least.

mAximo 9 months ago

There should be no term limits, only a ban on fund-raising & campaigning for the same office while in that office.

mAximo 9 months ago

Ending back the Fed is the WRONG WAY to taking back the power to create money:
1. We will overpay for all toxic assets on their balance sheet;
2. They'll undervalue all obligations to other banks (gold leases, currency swaps, etc.)
3. So it will be more looting of the Treasury to enrich the Fed's private shareholders, as guaranteed by the Federal Reserve Act. (The banksters were smart enough to put in a poison pill provision.)
We could do to the Fed what happened to our 1st private central bank: go into competition with it, when State banks were chartered to compete with the Bank of North America. The modern version is the Bank of North Dakota - the DBA name for the State of ND - but the Constitution prohibits it from emitting dollar bills, and coining money, so it is required to get Congress to do so for it via their own banks, one of which has already been chartered in Puerto Rico: The Government Development Bank, so we don't have to wait for them to recharter the Reconstruction Development Bank in DC. Such banks in federal territories are constitutional pursuant to Art.4 Sec.3, and necessary to implement federal monetary policy and for State banks to create greenbacks - neither should be in the hands of a private Fed, who should remain in business, but only to run the system "evolved" by private national banks - otherwise we might as well nationalise Las Vegas. Anyway, here's a link to the audit bill:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Transparency_Act

mAximo 9 months ago

While you're at it, please raise the age of majority to 21, while making the age for voting the same as the age for drinking liquor and joining the armed forces.

mAximo 9 months ago

well if you can't return and make your country competitive enough so that your countrymen aren't illegally immigrating here, how about you invent for us a National ID system that tracks immigrants overstaying their visas, like Muhammed Atta, instead of citizens who belong here?

mAximo 9 months ago

1. It wasn't Jefferson who said that.
2. HR 1207 isnt the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act to end the Fed; it's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Transparency_Act

In any case: Ending back the Fed is the WRONG WAY to taking back the power to create money:
1. We will overpay for all toxic assets on their balance sheet;
2. They'll undervalue all obligations to other banks (gold leases, currency swaps, etc.)
3. So it will be more looting of the Treasury to enrich the Fed's private shareholders, as guaranteed by the Federal Reserve Act. (The banksters were smart enough to put in a poison pill provision.)
We could do to the Fed what happened to our 1st private central bank: go into competition with it, when State banks were chartered to compete with the Bank of North America. The modern version is the Bank of North Dakota - the DBA name for the State of ND - but the Constitution prohibits it from emitting dollar bills, and coining money, so it is required to get Congress to do so for it via their own banks, one of which has already been chartered in Puerto Rico: The Government Development Bank, so we don't have to wait for them to recharter the Reconstruction Development Bank in DC. Such banks in federal territories are constitutional pursuant to Art.4 Sec.3, and necessary to implement federal monetary policy and for State banks to create greenbacks - neither should be in the hands of a private Fed, who should remain in business, but only to run the system "evolved" by private national banks - otherwise we might as well nationalise Las Vegas.

mAximo 9 months ago

To be specific, only the lawyers who are bar members need to be excluded from the other two branches. In the rest of the English speaking world, these are called barristers. When this country was founded, it was possible to be a lawyer without being a bar member, which was called a solicitor. That is why we still have a solicitor general in DC, and city solicitors in the eastern states: these titles are explicit that they're NOT to be bar members - who are to practice law in the courtroom only as officers of the court, and are not to solicit business from the general public directly, but only via solicitors. This has the fringe benefit of reducing conflict of interests.

mAximo 9 months ago

By the way, the wrong name is given for HR 1207. Check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Transparency_Act

mAximo 9 months ago

It seems like pending legislation is regarded as not being your idea. The moderators removed a Senate bill that had climbed to No 1.

mAximo 9 months ago

The Federal Reserve Act has a poison pill provision to make its repeal advantageous to the Fed's shareholders, and the Treasury should not be running the Federal Reserve System is needed to run the national system of private banks. The Act can simply be ignored with regard to a system of gov't banks, state & federal. That will get the Fed out of gov't business, and the gov't out of private business. The Treasury already issues currency in the form of gold & silver coins, and the bankers should be as free not to denominate their accounts in it as they do any foreign currency. The historical trade dollar (officially XUSD) was an ounce of silver (officially XAG), and so is the current silver dollar minted by it. Thus my preference is for Treasury dollars to be pegged to the price of silver, such that all interest on silver bonds be paid out in silver, similar to the old gold bonds, except that the principal would need to be rolled over.

mAximo 9 months ago

Ending the Fed is the WRONG WAY to taking back the power to create money:
1. We will overpay for all toxic assets on their balance sheet;
2. They'll undervalue all obligations to other banks (gold leases, currency swaps, etc.)
3. So it will be a looting of the Treasury to enrich the Fed's private shareholders, as guaranteed by the Federal Reserve Act. The banksters were smart enough to put in a poison pill provision.
We should do to the Fed what happened to our 1st private central bank: go into competition with it, when State banks were chartered to compete with the Bank of North America. The BoND is a modern version - the DBA name for the State of ND - but the Constitution prohibits it from emitting dollar bills, and coining money, so it is required to get the Treasury of Congress to do so for it via their own banks, one of which has already been chartered in Puerto Rico: The Government Development Bank, so we don't have to wait for them to recharter the Reconstruction Development Bank in DC. Such banks in federal territories are constitutional pursuant to Art.4 Sec.3, and necessary to implement federal monetary policsy and for State banks to create debt-free greenbacks - neither should be run a private Fed, who should remain in business, but only to run the system "evolved" by private national banks. This would ensure that the Fed is independent of politics by getting it out of government financial business, that ought to be in the hands of gov't banks not entitled to hide their dealings from the public. The Fed can keep its secrecy in regard to the affairs of the private banks, but not for ours.

mAximo 9 months ago

Repealing the Federal Reserve Act is the WRONG WAY to taking back the power to create money:
1. We will overpay for all toxic assets on their balance sheet;
2. They'll undervalue all obligations to other banks (gold leases, currency swaps, etc.)
3. So it will be a looting of the Treasury to enrich the Fed's private shareholders, as guaranteed by the Act. The banksters were smart enough to put in a poison pill provision.
We should do to the Fed what happened to our 1st private central bank: go into competition with it, when State banks were chartered to compete with the Bank of North America. The BoND is a modern version - the DBA name for the State of ND - but the Constitution prohibits it from emitting dollar bills, and coining money, so it is required to get the Treasury or Congress to do so for it via their own banks, one of which has already been chartered in Puerto Rico: The Government Development Bank, so we don't have to wait for them to recharter the Reconstruction Development Bank in DC. Such banks in federal territories are constitutional pursuant to Art.4 Sec.3, and necessary to implement federal monetary policsy and for State banks to create debt-free greenbacks - neither should be in the hands of a private Fed, who should remain in business, but only to run the system "evolved" by private national banks.

mAximo 9 months ago

Nationalising/abolishing the Fed is the WRONG WAY to taking back the power to create money:
1. We will overpay for all toxic assets on their balance sheet;
2. They'll undervalue all obligations to other banks (gold leases, currency swaps, etc.)
3. So it will be a looting of the Treasury to enrich the Fed's private shareholders, as guaranteed by the Federal Reserve Act. The banksters were smart enough to put in a poison pill provision.
We should do to the Fed what happened to our 1st private central bank: go into competition with it, when State banks were chartered to compete with the Bank of North America. The BoND is a modern version - the DBA name for the State of ND - but the Constitution prohibits it from emitting dollar bills, and coining money, so it is required to get the Treasury or Congress to do so for it via their own banks, one of which has already been chartered in Puerto Rico: The Government Development Bank, so we don't have to wait for them to recharter the Reconstruction Development Bank in DC. Such banks in federal territories are constitutional pursuant to Art.4 Sec.3, and necessary to implement federal monetary policsy and for State banks to create greenbacks - neither should be in the hands of a private Fed, who should remain in business, but only to run the system "evolved" by private national banks. So the Federal Reserve System need not go to waste.

mAximo 9 months ago

This is already done by the Government Development Bank in Puerto Rico which also used its power to forbid subprime mortgages.
We should do to the Fed what happened to our 1st private central bank: go into competition with it, when State banks were chartered to compete with the Bank of North America. The BoND is a modern version - the DBA name for the State of ND - but the Constitution prohibits it from emitting dollar bills, and coining money, so it is required to get Congress to do so for it via their own banks, one of which has already been chartered in Puerto Rico: The Government Development Bank, so we don't have to wait for them to recharter the Reconstruction Development Bank in DC. Such banks in federal territories are constitutional pursuant to Art.4 Sec.3, and necessary to implement federal monetary policsy and for State banks to create greenbacks - neither should be in the hands of a private Fed, who should remain in business, but only to run the system "evolved" by private national banks.

mAximo 9 months ago

This idea is already being implemented in Puerto Rico by Fomento, which had the power to prohibit subprime mortgages.
We should do to the Fed what happened to our 1st private central bank: go into competition with it, when State banks were chartered to compete with the Bank of North America. The BoND is a modern version - the DBA name for the State of ND - but the Constitution prohibits it from emitting dollar bills, and coining money, so it is required to get Congress to do so for it via their own banks, one of which has already been chartered in Puerto Rico: The Government Development Bank, so we don't have to wait for them to recharter the Reconstruction Development Bank in DC. Such banks in federal territories are constitutional pursuant to Art.4 Sec.3, and necessary to implement federal monetary policy, and for State banks to create debt-free greenbacks - neither should be in the hands of a private Fed, who should remain in business, but only to run the system "evolved" by private national banks.

mAximo 9 months ago

Buying back the Fed is the WRONG WAY to taking back the power to create money:
1. We will overpay for all toxic assets on their balance sheet;
2. They'll undervalue all obligations to other banks (gold leases, currency swaps, etc.)
3. So it will be a looting of the Treasury to enrich the Fed's private shareholders, as guaranteed by the Federal Reserve Act. The banksters were smart enough to put in a poison pill provision in case of nationalisation.
We should do to the Fed what happened to our 1st private central bank: go into competition with it, when State banks were chartered to compete with the Bank of North America. The BoND is one such bank, but the Constitution prohibits it from emitting dollar bills, and coining money, so it is required to get Congress to do so for it via their own banks, one of which has already been chartered in Puerto Rico: The Government Development Bank, so we don't have to wait for them to recharter the Reconstruction Development Bank in DC. Such banks in federal territories are constitutional pursuant to Art.4 Sec.3, and necessary to for State banks to create greenbacks, and to implement federal monetary policy: neither should be in the hands of a private Fed, who should remain in business to run the system "evolved" by private national banks.
Otherwise we might as well nationalise Las Vegas.

mAximo 9 months ago

including an itemised list of campaign contributors

mAximo 9 months ago

This idea is important because it was the federal gov't which refused to give its assent to let a grand jury be convened to decide whether or not USAma ben Laden should be indicted for federal crimes that it accused him of committing in connection to the destruction of WTC Building 7 by a plane which had been grounded in Boston. We need to know why one day he was accused of a crime he could not have committed, and the next evidence is withheld, if not destroyed, which could have been used to indict him.

mAximo 9 months ago

As bad as sotomaYOR is, at least she knows that the 14th Amendment was not part of the Bill of Rights

mAximo 9 months ago

The real problem is the Wall Street has been able to buy off DC such that derivative transaction are free of excise tax. Had there been a mere tax of 1% split in half between purchaser & seller, the gov't would have earned enough to finance the bailouts - or IRS intrusion would have been enough regulation.

mAximo 9 months ago

Emerich wasn't English, and wasn't writing in English nor from the perspective of the free system of English laws nor traditional common law. Thus, his writings have less bearing on the meaning of the Constitution than Webster's first dictionary. As for Joseph Story's quote, it applies better to Obama's mother, than to M:Cain. Nobody is arguing that he or his parents lost citizenship as a result of living in the Canal Zone - at the time not under the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights - just like Puerto Rico then, as the Balzac decision ruled. Yet there are those who argue that she did because she had lived in Kenya while still a minor. I am arguing that Obama's parentage, including subsequent adoption by an Indonesian, is irrelevant, because the 18th century definition of 'natural born' is 'native born' just as 'natural language' was defined as 'native language'.

mAximo 9 months ago

The most efficient monetary system is Adam Smith's Real Bills Doctrine, with appropriate local bells & whistles.

mAximo 9 months ago

In the language of the 18th century, natural was a synonym of native. Thus 'natural language' meant native language, as explicitly stated in the first Webster's Dictionary, which also gives acquired as well as artificial as antonyms of natural. This implies that 'natural born' meant 'native born' AND that M:Cain isn't natural born, since he was born in a U.S. territory that in the meantime didn't adopt the Constitution. It thereby doesn't matter if he also was eligible to acquire citizenship via his parents, if the concept involved is strictly 'jus soli.' One thing is certain: if M:Cain had won, nobody here would be asking to verify his eligibility, even though his citizenship was acquired rather than native. Had his parents given him up for adoption in Panama, he would not have been able to acquire US citizenship after becoming an adult, and perhaps earlier. This typifies the usual practical difference between natural born and acquired citizenship, and needs to be enforced consistently.

mAximo 9 months ago

In the language of the 18th century, natural was a synonym of native. Thus 'natural language' meant native language, as explicitly stated in the first Webster's Dictionary, which also gives acquired as well as artificial as antonyms of natural. This implies that 'natural born' meant 'native born' AND that M:Cain isn't natural born, since he was born in a U.S. territory that in the meantime didn't adopt the Constitution. It thereby doesn't matter if he also was eligible to acquire citizenship via his parents, if the concept involved is strictly 'jus soli.' One thing is certain: if M:Cain had won, nobody here would be asking to verify his eligibility, even though his citizenship was acquired rather than native. Had his parents given him up for adoption in Panama, he would not have been able to acquire US citizenship after becoming an adult, and perhaps earlier. This typifies the usual practical difference between natural born and acquired citizenship, and needs to be enforced consistently.

mAximo 9 months ago

Emerich wasn't English, and wasn't writing in English nor from the perspective of the free system of English laws nor traditional common law. Thus, his writings have less bearing on the meaning of the Constitution than Webster's first dictionary.

mAximo 9 months ago

The Fed's back-room deals with commercial (& foreign central) banks, would be open to congressional scrutiny if done by a gov't bank, such as Fomento or the RDB, rather than the private Fed. Currently its deals are proprietary & trade secrets - even were they available to Congress in closed session - so failing all the more to qualify as "open gov't."

mAximo 9 months ago

The Gov't Development Bank in PR goes by 'Fomento' in Spanish. I was assuming that the only way to 'create money' oneself with no interest due via one's own bank is to emit bills of credit as scrip/greenbacks/continentals. Even if such creation is only a bookkeeping entry, it is still will be prohibited to a State bank, when trying to 'emit' that money. Yet a State can have its interest-free money created via Fed mechanisms (as in alternative c), as long as the Fed holds interest rates at zero, or via congressionally chartered banks such as the RDB or Fomento. If Congress were to allow such banks to compete with the Fed, for lending to a state gov't bank, then the Fed would have to offer it zero interest rates to stay competitive, or provide it more or better services. So I voted for Ellen's idea, using alternative b) as a way to compete w/the Fed.

mAximo 9 months ago

In response to phreedomphan, the power assumed by this bill to create paper money has been delegated by the Articles, and the power to incorporate a bank has been delegated by the Constitution in Art.4 Sec.3 to the US in federal territories: the Reconstruction Development Bank could thereby be revived in DC; the Government Development Bank already is in operation in Puerto Rico, and could easily emit bills of credit tomorrow, if Congress approved that today. In response to others, ND may not create its own money, as Art.1 Sec.10 prohibits States from emitting (physical or electronic) bills of credit. It may only have the Fed create do so for it.

mAximo 9 months ago

Q. Why wasn't the question answered 'why is this idea important?'
A. Because a thinly veiled funding drive to "direct agencies, set standards, create funding sources" and study spending, doesn't qualify as an OG idea

mAximo 9 months ago

Having the foxes evaluate how well they're guarding the henhouse isn't the brightest of ideas.

mAximo 9 months ago

In the language of the 18th century, natural was a synonym of native. Thus 'natural language' meant native language, as explicitly stated in the first Webster's Dictionary, which also gives acquired as well as artificial as antonyms of natural. This implies that 'natural born' meant 'native born' AND that M:Cain isn't natural born, since he was born in a U.S. territory that in the meantime didn't adopt the Constitution. It thereby doesn't matter if he also was eligible to acquire citizenship via his parents, if the concept involved is strictly 'jus soli.' One thing is certain: if M:Cain had won, nobody here would be asking to verify his eligibility, even though his citizenship was acquired rather than native.

mAximo 9 months ago

One dollar, one vote. A great way to raise revenue, and much more honest than how politicians raise funds for re-election.

mAximo 9 months ago

Walk into any law library. Pull U.S. Code Title 1 off the shelf, and after the Declaration of Independence, you'll see the Articles of Confederation & Perpetual Union. In Article IX you'll read: "The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to...borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the United States." Although the Constitution altered the Articles, it never repealed them, otherwise Article 7 wouldn't have made allowance for the Union to wear two hats: one for States ratifying the Constitution; another for States preferring to remain under the Articles. Thus, Ellen is right that Congress can create paper money, not only because it's an implied power under the Constitution, but an express power under the Articles.
However, I disagree that the Fed should be nationalised, esp. as there's a poison pill provision in the Federal Reserve Act. Every free market profits from competition, so Congress should simply should go into competition with the private bankers, as it did during the Civil War when emitting greenbacks and the Revolutionary War when emitting Continentals. Otherwise we'll wind up subsidising the Fed's shareholders by overpaying for its toxic balance sheet.

Categories

User Activity Stream

Comments Posted