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