It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
teamcommander
reply to post by Leonidas
It is true what you suggest has not been done before but the circumstances for what I suggest have not been in place before now.
I don't think we should pass-up the opportunity to take advantage of the animosity which currently exists in the federal government at this point in time.
teamcommander
From there it will go to any of several congressional oversite committies and I have no doubt there are several members of congress which will work to bring about court actions to get the whole mess straightened out.
Really quite simple if you think about it.
mbkennel
teamcommander
From there it will go to any of several congressional oversite committies and I have no doubt there are several members of congress which will work to bring about court actions to get the whole mess straightened out.
Really quite simple if you think about it.
Yes, it's simple, because the lawsuit would be dismissed immediately.
The Sherman Antitrust act is a law, and subsequent laws can, in effect, modify it. If US Congress passes a law creating a quasi-governmental agency it is assumed that it is legal. Only a constitutional violation could thwart the legislature.
By the similar (specious) reasoning as the Fed being subject to anti-trust, somebody could accuse say NASA, EPA, or AirForce or any other US government agency created after the antitrust act as being illegal.
It's very obvious that a regulatory agency (which is what the Fed is) is nothing like a monopolistic commercial violator. It's the Fed and the OCC (part of Treasury dep't) which restrains the private sector banks from being excessively obnoxious.edit on 7-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
mrphilosophias
The Pujo committee thought otherwise. The Federal Reserve is precisely what is meant in section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. It is a trust of private banks.
mbkennel
mrphilosophias
The Pujo committee thought otherwise. The Federal Reserve is precisely what is meant in section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. It is a trust of private banks.
No, not really. The activities of the Federal Reserve are not that similar to what a collection of entirely private profit-maximizing banks would do for economic collusion. Just read a contemporary business newspaper/site. The Fed is imposing capital requirements on banks in concert with the Fed's "stress test" for soundness. These requirements are the opposite of profit maximizing (in the short run), they cost the banks return on equity, executive bonuses, and limit their ability to grow and consolidate. They do serve a governmental and public interest, however.
mbkennel
There is always the problem of regulatory capture---but abolishing the regulatory authority is not the answer!
mbkennel
And it doesn't matter---if Congress passes a law setting up a government institution, then it is legal, regardless of previous laws other than the US Constitution. And yes, in practice the Federal Reserve is mostly government. Private banks do have representatives in the Fed---as the Fed has regulators at the banks---but the overall policy is set by the Board of Governors who are appointed by the President, and are accountable by law to Congress. And all profits of the Fed are sent to the U.S. Treasury, not any private owners. So by management control and economic benefit, the Fed is a US Government institution as everybody understands.edit on 7-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
InvisibleOwl
reply to post by buster2010
I'm kinda new to this topic, but how the heck did Lincoln try to abolish something that was created 43 years after his death?
mbkennel
And it doesn't matter---if Congress passes a law setting up a government institution, then it is legal, regardless of previous laws other than the US Constitution.
PlanetXisHERE
reply to post by mrphilosophias
Good luck with legal recourse, who do you think controls the courts?
Buy as much silver as you can, hold it physically, and convince everyone else you know to do the same.
Why? The power of the Federal Reserve lies in the power to print fiat money, money backed by nothing physically. Throughout the ages people have known when the price of gold goes up, it is not truly the price of gold going up but just a decrease in the value or perceived value of the current fiat money. The real price of gold in kept in check by massive naked illegal short selling, the same happens to the price of silver, but this is harder to do with silver as much of the silver mined is used up, unlike gold. So when the inevitable silver shortage occurs, the price of gold will go up as well - and it will be the signal to the world that the dominant currency is near death - which will hurt the Federal Reserve. To cut them off at the knees the next world reserve currency must be backed by silver and gold and maybe other resources. Just my two cents.
InvisibleOwl
reply to post by buster2010
I'm kinda new to this topic, but how the heck did Lincoln try to abolish something that was created 43 years after his death?
Speak all the law you want. They are literally too big to fail unless the whole of America stands and unites against them at once and America will not. The own the law. It's been this way since..well, 1913. Like we can change it now, America is all divided, brainwashed and scared of it's own shadows. America fears the government like a child fears a monster under it's bed.
NthOther
Why worry about "legal" recourse?
They're not following their own rules so I see no reason why the rest of us should.
We're not going to win playing by their rules. Throw legality out. It's useless.