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.

 

American Dictators: Federal Reserve Governors

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Just got done reading a mind blowing passage from the federal reserve website.


Once appointed, Governors may not be removed from office for their policy views. 
.

www.federalreserve.gov...

Governors serve a term of 14 years, in which they set policy and can not be removed from office for their policy. Is that not the definition of a dictator? Sure they are first appointed and accepted by the president and senate, but what if a previous governor sets policy to influence those elctions in some way? Way too much open ended power, its not even constitutional so how could a constitutional branch of government appoint it? All wrong.

"Without doubt, the Federal Reserve's staff is the great strength of this great institution." -Chairman Ben S. Bernanke
www.federalreserve.gov...



edit on 12-1-2012 by filosophia because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
Just got done reading a mind blowing passage from the federal reserve website.


Once appointed, Governors may not be removed from office for their policy views. 
.

www.federalreserve.gov...

Governors serve a term of 14 years, in which they set policy and can not be removed from office for their policy. Is that not the definition of a dictator? Sure they are first appointed and accepted by the president and senate, but what if a previous governor sets policy to influence those elctions in some way? Way too much open ended power, its not even constitutional so how could a constitutional branch of government appoint it? All wrong.

"Without doubt, the Federal Reserve's staff is the great strength of this great institution." -Chairman Ben S. Bernanke
www.federalreserve.gov...



edit on 12-1-2012 by filosophia because: (no reason given)


If you squint a bit you could possibly order that it would fit the old Roman Republic version of a dictator, aka a legally appointed official who is given power and can't be removed for a period of time over issue of policy difference, but then you still be wrong they're members of a greater board so it isn't one person with power. I am going to suggest that if this dude tried to you know act like a dictator and order the cops to arrest you, he be kicked out for being insane and engaging in criminal activity. Which would not happen with a dictator.

Second by your own link they have staggered appointment cycles, so meaning that current government can put if it wanted its own voice on the table, but as your own link said, its set up this way because it wants to insulated itself from day to day politics much like we tried to do with the judiciary.

Third central banking was declared Constitutional way towards the start of the country, and its pretty much because Andrew Jackson (he had a bad experience with bank failure in his younger years) had irrational hate on for the Second Bank of the United States that we didn't have for a good portion of the 19th century



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Koffee
 


There was nothing irrational about Jackson's hatred to the Second Bank of the United States. Clearly it was creating inflation and destroying the economic life of the people he was sworn to protect. Jackson was also the first President to ever have been the target of assassination attempts. Coincidental to be sure that an Englishman would twice fire pistols at Jacksons' head only to have both fail to discharge.
Yep, thank God we have the Federal Reserve system watching over the economy of the United States. How would we ever survive without them?
[sarcasm off]



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by Koffee
 


There was nothing irrational about Jackson's hatred to the Second Bank of the United States. Clearly it was creating inflation and destroying the economic life of the people he was sworn to protect. Jackson was also the first President to ever have been the target of assassination attempts. Coincidental to be sure that an Englishman would twice fire pistols at Jacksons' head only to have both fail to discharge.
Yep, thank God we have the Federal Reserve system watching over the economy of the United States. How would we ever survive without them?
[sarcasm off]


Please cite some sources where the Second Bank of the United States created the inflation. It wasn't a perfect entity but under Biddle it managed to advert at least one crisis, and frankly the economic history of the US between the central banks wasn't a utopian golden age for those small time farmers and frontiersmen who had to deal with state banks that were in dire straights.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Koffee
Third central banking was declared Constitutional way towards the start of the country, and its pretty much because Andrew Jackson (he had a bad experience with bank failure in his younger years) had irrational hate on for the Second Bank of the United States that we didn't have for a good portion of the 19th century


Yeah....I'd like to see the source for this claim please.
The declaration of central banking being constitutional and all.
The only thing I have found was the Senate passing a bill to incorporate the Bank of the United States.
That was Saturday February 26th, 1791.
No mention of declaration of constitutionality though...

Because there's no congressional record that I can find with those claims.
Yet....

But here's some history on why the Second bank closed:

In the United States the first bank was the Bank of North America, established (1781) in Philadelphia. Congress chartered the first Bank of the United States in 1791 to engage in general commercial banking and to act as the fiscal agent of the government, but did not renew its charter in 1811. A similar fate befell the second Bank of the United States, chartered in 1816 and closed in 1836.

Prior to 1838 a bank charter could be obtained only by a specific legislative act, but in that year New York adopted the Free Banking Act, which permitted anyone to engage in banking, upon compliance with certain charter conditions. Free banking spread rapidly to other states, and from 1840 to 1863 all banking business was done by state-chartered institutions.

Source

Unless you are thinking of Madison's support for a national bank after loathing the idea..?
Or Hamilton's chartered First Bank of the US in 1790?
I still don't see anywhere that central banking was declared constitutional.
Rather the views being quite the opposite...


Thanks.




edit on 12-1-2012 by havok because: clarity and reason.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by havok

Yeah....I'd like to see the source for this claim please.
The declaration of central banking being constitutional and all.
The only thing I have found was the Senate passing a bill to incorporate the Bank of the United States.
That was Saturday February 26th, 1791.
No mention of declaration of constitutionality though...

Because there's no congressional record that I can find with those claims.
Yet....


I know why the Second Bank of the United States was closed.

And I was referring to this case: Maryland vs the Bank's legitimacy and it ruled in favor of the bank's legitimacy, the wiki link en.wikipedia.org...

Unless there is later decisions out there that changed it that I can't find, its legal.


edit on 13-1-2012 by Koffee because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-1-2012 by Koffee because: never type while your friend talks to you while posting


edit on 13-1-2012 by Koffee because: fixed major mistake



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Koffee
 


Even with that hearing the courts did not rule central banking as "constitutional".
More of the power delegated from the constitutional was for congress to coin money.
Not establish any bank.

They declared a state tax on the bank unconstitutional though.


Still don't see it.
And I'm not starting an argument, more like a curious gesture.
Either that or you are just stating that central banks are positive for this country?
In which case would mean you're stating an opinion...
That I disagree with.









posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by havok
reply to post by Koffee
 


Even with that hearing the courts did not rule central banking as "constitutional".
More of the power delegated from the constitutional was for congress to coin money.
Not establish any bank.

1. If the central bank which was the central issues was not a legal institution then they would of said so. Second as my link says


The court determined that Congress did have the power to create the Bank. Chief Justice Marshall supported this conclusion with four main arguments.[1] First, he argued that historical practice established Congress' power to create the Bank. Marshall invoked the first Bank of the United States history as authority for the constitutionality of the second bank.[1] The first Congress enacted the bank after great debate and that it was approved by an executive "with as much persevering talent as any measure has ever experienced, and being supported by arguments which convinced minds as pure and as intelligent as this country can boast."


Which would make sense because it be the height of cognitive dissonance to say that it would be illegal to tax an entity that should be in existence in the first place, without mentioning that latter fact, instead we get a defense of the bank in at the highest court and them striking down a law to tax it. Thus by saying that Congress has the power to create the bank, its saying its constitutional.



Still don't see it.
And I'm not starting an argument, more like a curious gesture.
Either that or you are just stating that central banks are positive for this country?
In which case would mean you're stating an opinion...
That I disagree with.

I think central banking for a country provides several benefits, as well as several risks. On the whole I think the benefits generally outweigh the risks, but like all human institutions they will screw up. The Bank War showed case that explicitly. Though destruction of the Second Bank did little to help the little that Jackson was theoretically fighting for with the Panic of 1837.





edit on 13-1-2012 by Koffee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Are you aware that JFK issued non-Fed money late in his pregnancy. It was called "US notes" issued directly by the Treasury, and it was different from Fed Reserve notes. But they didn't like that, and you know what happened next.

But speaking of what happened next, there is a new breakthrough in the JFK Assassination. It concerns the famous Altgens photo. Close examination reveals that the Doorway Man was indeed Lee Harvey Oswald and not Billy Lovelady. So, Oswald was watching during the shooting.

I have made a 5 minute video about this on Youtube entitled Visible Proof That Oswald Was Innocent. Please watch it, and please spread the word. A 48 year old state lie is dying. Let's put it out of its misery.


www.youtube.com...




top topics



 
9

log in

join