Part 2: What is a Constitutional Dollar and Why Does It Matter?

I have an opinion that some people within the liberty movement might find highly distasteful.

I believe that the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve Note’s legal tender status is lawful under the U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8.

I believe that any efforts to 'end the Fed' are an act of futility - a misguided epic waste of time.

However, I also believe that the authority structure of the regulation of the value of the Federal Reserve Note may be unlawful under the U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8, and may represent a bad faith abdication of duty by the legislature to uphold the Constitution. I believe we have an actual pathway open to return lawful money to the land.

Part 1 can be found here:
https://steemit.com/freedom/@annie.oakley/part-1-what-is-a-constitutional-dollar-and-why-does-it-matter

In Part 1, I explored:

• Why should the battle for the restoration of lawful money matter to you?
• Why I believe that an insidious legitimized legal system of capture is being used against us to abridge our freedoms
• Why competing cryptocurrencies alone aren’t enough.
• There are paths to remedy I think we need to walk to most effectively and permanently divorce ourselves from FRN and IRS overstepping of lawful authority, and regain some semblance of liberty.

Other related posts:
https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@annie.oakley/is-bitcoin-property-is-it-currency-does-it-even-matter
https://steemit.com/freedom/@annie.oakley/is-the-american-law-institute-the-hidden-head-of-the-hydra-or-could-it-be-the-heart-of-the-beast

In this post, Part 2, I will continue to explore the question, What Is a Constitutional Dollar and Why Does It Matter?

In part two, which will be written soon-ish, I will take a look at the lawfulness of the Federal Reserve System and Federal Reserve Notes, the Constitutional dollar, and explore part of the path leading to why I believe there are lawful and legal paths to remedy that would involve separating the FRN from the USD and allowing them to compete, and shedding any potential opaque obligations arising from transacting in FRN. I am not interested in spouting non-evidentiary speculation on conspiracy theory; my posts on these matters are born of deep inquiry, consideration, and research. In case it isn't apparent, let me disclose that I am not licensed to practice or teach law, and nothing I say here should be construed as legal advice. I do, however, encourage a self-study of legal English, the law, and legal codes.

Again, I am not licensed to practice or teach law, and nothing I say here should be construed as legal advice. For readability purposes I am going to break this post up into additional parts. Also, my brain is presently repulsed at the thought of doing a UCC dive right now. In this post we will be exploring lawfulness/unlawfulness of the Federal Reserve System and the way Federal Reserve Notes are currently regulated.

Later in Part 3 we will further explore what a constitutional ‘dollar’ is as well as the various coinage acts. Either in Part 3 or Part 4 we will take a dive into the Perry v. United States Supreme Court case.

Let’s start by taking a Look at a U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8 excerpt relating to the Powers of Congress:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

READ: http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-07-13/everyone-knows-federal-reserve-banks-are-private-%E2%80%A6-except-american-people

The Federal Reserve System is composed of 12 Reserve banks. The shareholders of each branch consist of that branch’s member banks. Dividends are paid to shareholders.

SCOTT v. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF KANSAS CITY 2005 https://scholar.google.co.in/scholar_case?q=Scott+v.+Federal+Reserve+Bank+of+Kansas&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1&case=3831087424959844800&scilh=0

MELLOY, Circuit Judge – “We now hold that the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City is not an agency of the federal government for purposes of Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), and accordingly dismiss the appeal as untimely.”

Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas argues it is not a federal agency and is owned by commercial banks,

i. paragraph 3:
The Bank argues that it is not a federal agency for purposes of Rule 4 because Federal Reserve Banks are distinct from the Board of Governors, owned by commercial banks, and directly supervised in their daily operations by separate boards of directors—not the federal government. Further, the Bank states that Federal Reserve Bank employees are not considered federal employees, officials, or representatives for purposes of 12 U.S.C. § 341. The Bank also contends, inter alia, that the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 451 and relevant case law state that Federal Reserve Banks are not federal agencies.

So, the Board of Governors is a federal agency, but the actual Federal Reserve Bank branches are not.

Who owns the Federal Reserve? - https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm
That page has been through a couple of edits during this past year. We’re going to throw it back to August 12, 2016 because they have since dropped the reference to statute:

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160812220535/https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm
As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.
However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government."
It is still unclear to me at this time where the legal entities that compose the Federal Reserve System are officially, legally domiciled. Private corporations have a legal domicile somewhere. Although the Fed branches are chartered under The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, I am not aware of an “Articles of Incorporation” being on file in any of the 50 states. If you are aware of such documentation and would like to share, I would appreciate it.

Why I believe that the Federal Reserve Note would be considered ‘foreign coin’ under US Constitution Article 1 Section 8:

The US Government is not a shareholder to those legal entities that are a part of the Federal Reserve System, but also the Federal Reserve banks exist outside of the federal government, and outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government. Here I am using 'jurisdiction' in the sense of the federal government's lack of direct 'official power to make legal decisions and judgments' and not in the sense of territory. Furthermore, unless I am able to obtain the Articles of Incorporation for the several branches, I will not assume that the Fed branches are domiciled on American territory; they may also exist outside of territorial jurisdiction of the USA.

Let’s return to the wayback excerpt from the federalreserve.gov page above. The second paragraph states that Congress can alter the Fed’s responsibilities by statute. I will assert that these statutes may fall under the “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations…” clause of Article 1 Section 8.
I will further assert that the section of Article 1 Section 8 that states “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures” is a duty that has not been upheld in good faith by the legislature, specifically the “…regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin…”.

I do believe that the Federal Reserve System's existence is permissive under Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution as is the FRN legal tender status, but the regulation of the value of the FRN and the lack of sufficient lawful money are unlawful.

I believe there is a pathway of remedy open to have the USD divorced from the FRN and to compel the Treasury to mint sufficient lawful money. I believe that exercising these remedies is imperative to the future well-being of this nation.

What is lawful money? We’ll be taking a closer look at that in Part 3.

Copyright © 2017