Posts Tagged ‘Congress’

One of the misconceptions bandied about in the alternative media is that Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan claimed in 2007 that the Fed was above the law, as this popular video indicates.

Here’s what he actually said:

The Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means, basically, that there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take.

He didn’t say that the Fed is above the law — he made the true claim that no other *agency* of government can overrule it, where agency means some other body created by Congress. Congress itself can get rid of the Fed, and should, because its purpose was to serve the big financial interests and not the interests of the people, such as limited state banking and usury-free community currencies would.

Read Full Post »

U.S. ConstitutionThe no double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

The double jeopardy “loophole” is this; that where the accused is acquitted of a state crime, he/she is then tried for the same federal crime, and vice-versa.

The original intent of the Bill of Rights was to only limit the newly-created federal government, and not the States. Then, subsequent to the American Civil War, parts of the Bill of Rights have been progressively incorporated against the States.

It wasn’t that the principles of the Bill of Rights shouldn’t apply to the States, but the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to them for two main reasons:

1) Most of the States already had similar bills.

2) A federal Bill of Rights would be used to federalize the application of the Bill of Rights, which could lead to bad decisions applying to the entire country and subvert the federal design of the government, with the States sovereign within their respective jurisdictions.

Therefore, by original design, this “loophole” wasn’t a loophole because the federal government understood that it had no power to define and prosecute crimes that were completely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the States.

Where it became a problem and a loophole, was when the federal government stepped beyond its constitutional bounds and defined crimes that it had no valid constitutional basis for doing so.

The few and defined federal crimes in the Constitution are treason, piracy, counterfeiting and crimes against the laws of nations.

I don’t share the view of some that Congress had no power to define additional laws.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

This gave Congress the power to define any crimes it wanted that would apply to this District.

Outside of that District, I argue that Congress still has the power to define additional crimes. For example, crimes relating to its power to coin money. And we see from the 1792 Coinage Act, that death was the penalty for debasing the currency.

This is further evidenced by Article II, Section 4, which states:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The mention of “other high Crimes” implies that Congress can define and punish other “high Crimes”, not only within the District, but outside, because of the mention of “all civil Officers”.

But, the restriction upon defining new crimes is whether it relates to what is “necessary and proper” for carrying out Congress’ 18 enumerated powers.

Therefore, federal “crimes” relating to cross-state drug “offences”, cross-state “terrorism” “offences”, etc., are completely invalid, and this is where the double jeopardy loophole applies.

How to deal with the federal government going beyond its constitutional boundaries in defining and punishing non-crimes? The States should nullify them by preventing state officials from providing any support or co-operation for the prosecution of these federal non-crimes.

Read Full Post »

United States ConstitutionI fell for the myth of the “godless” U.S. Constitution until 2012.

Here are the reasons the United States Constitution is not “godless”, with thanks to Pastor David Whitney of the Institute on the Constitution for bringing up some of these points up during a presentation he made on Radio Liberty with Dr. Stan Monteith:

Starting with the preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Where do “Blessings” come from, if not from God?

And the Declaration of Independence makes it clear that the “Creator” is the author of “Liberty”, as we see from its text:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Then, there are the references in the Constitution to oaths, such as this one:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.

The distinguishing feature between an Oath and Affirmation is that an oath is sworn to God, while an affirmation is only solemnly stated.

We see this from the Merriam-Webster dictionary’s primary definition for oath:

1a (1) : a solemn usually formal calling upon God or a god to witness to the truth of what one says or to witness that one sincerely intends to do what one says

and with all definitions of affirmation, there is no mention of God:

1a : the act of affirming
b : something affirmed : a positive assertion
2 : a solemn declaration made under the penalties of perjury by a person who conscientiously declines taking an oath

The second definition shows that one makes an affirmation by conscientiously declining to take an oath, meaning that one doesn’t believe in God, or doesn’t feel that it is necessary to do so, while still believing in God.

Then, for the requirement of the President upon taking office:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Then, for the oath or affirmation required of Senators and Representatives:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The “no religious Test” requirement is internally supported in the Constitution by the ability to either swear an oath or make an affirmation, and its purpose was to prevent religious divisions among the many Christian denominations at the time, and later, among different religions.

The most cited reference made by those advocating a “godless” Constitution refer to the First Amendment, which states, in part:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

This is one of the most misunderstood parts of the Constitution. It only limits Congress from establishing any official national religion, and from prohibiting the free exercise of religion anywhere in the United States. It does nothing to prevent the States from doing so, within their respective jurisdictions. This is evidenced by the states of Massachusetts and Connecticut having official state religions after the U.S. Constitution was adopted.

And since the Executive can only execute laws passed by Congress, if Congress can pass no laws establishing an official religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise of religion, the Executive also cannot implement any regulations doing the same.

Then, since the judicial branch can only interpret laws passed by Congress, they are also prevented from doing the same.

Notice that there is no “wall of separation between Church and State” mentioned here, or anywhere else in the Constitution. In fact, that reference is from a 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, which referred to a one-way wall of separation, with the newly constituted federal government unable to interfere with religious worship in any way.

Then, in the Fourth Amendment, we see a reference to an “Oath”.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Long before 2012, I was aware of the mention of “the Year of our Lord” in the Constitution, and accepted the notion that it was just used as a convention at the time.

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.

However, if it connoted nothing religious, then why did Thomas Jefferson’s aforementioned 1802 letter only show him signing the date and year, and mentioning nothing about “the Year of our Lord”?

Finally, the mention of most of the rights in the Bill of Rights are references to natural rights, and where do those natural rights come from? The signers of the Declaration of Independence made it clear that they are from the “Creator”, who is also “Nature’s God”.

For more on the godly nature of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. form of government, see my interview with Pastor David Whitney here.

Read Full Post »

Federal Reserve BoardNote: This is based on this article I posted on April 21, 2012, with the exception that it was about the 99-year charter misinformation, and I have substituted 100-year, which is the alternative misinformation that some people were spreading in 2013 even after the 99-year charter claim had been shown to be false.

There was actually a commenter who alleged a coverup on the part of the Federal Reserve, saying they were lying about there not being a 99-year charter. This is unfortunately not uncommon in what passes for the alternative media these days. It’s not because the Federal Reserve’s website says there was originally a 20-year charter that I say there was a 20-year charter. It’s because there are a variety of historical sources that say so, some of which are non-governmental, and not supporters of the Fed.

The claim that the Federal Reserve was given a 100-year charter set to expire in 2013 isn’t the only myth surrounding its creation.

There is also the myth that the Federal Reserve Act was passed during the Christmas break when most members of Congress were away. That isn’t true, and there is the official record showing the final vote in the Senate was 54-32 on December 18, 1913.

According to Section 4, part 2 of the Federal Reserve Act, 1913, it says of each of the 12 privately owned Federal Reserve Banks:

“To have succession for a period of twenty years from its organization unless it is sooner dissolved by an Act of Congress, or unless its franchise becomes forfeited by some violation of law.“

Since the Federal Reserve Board’s site shows that all 12 original Federal Reserve Banks are still in operation, their 20-year charter must have been extended.

A 20-year charter was also granted to the First and Second Banks of the United States, and both had their charter terminated. Yes, there was a time when privately owned central banks had time-limited charters, and for good reason, due to the havoc they caused.

12 U.S.C. § 341 : US Code – Section 341: General enumeration of powers shows:

“Second. To have succession after February 25, 1927, until dissolved by Act of Congress or until forfeiture of franchise for violation of law.“

Again, since the Federal Reserve Board’s site shows that shows that all 12 original Federal Reserve Banks are still in operation, this provision was either changed with some other time limit, or was never changed.

In fact, it was never changed, and, therefore, their charter doesn’t expire in 2013, and there was never a 100-year charter for the Federal Reserve.

Read Full Post »

Fiscal cliffThe mass media misled Americans, and the world, about the phony U.S. debt fiscal cliff non-crisis in at least two big ways:

1) There was never any threat of defaulting on the U.S. debt as a result of not raising the debt limit, as federal revenues still exceed interest and principal payments on the federal debt. The consequence would be that the federal government would have to return more closely to its constitutional boundaries, in cutting back the >40% of every dollar spent that it is currently financing by borrowing.

2) The U.S. doesn’t depend on borrowing from any country or individuals — the Federal Reserve could buy up as many Treasury Bonds as it wants, and return most of the money back to the U.S. Treasury, as it is required to do by law, after paying its expenses, and shareholders. This is what the government’s been relying on since 2008 anyway. This will result in the eventual destruction of the USD, as this borrowing isn’t subject to the same kind of scrutiny by big lending countries like China and Japan.

Read Full Post »

On the May 19, 2013 episode of Exposing Faux Capitalism with Jason Erb on Truth Frequency Radio, I covered the following articles. Unfortunately, there was another show that aired on top of mine in the second hour.

Jason Erb interviewed by Dr. Stan Monteith on Canada now more free than the United States, May 7, 2013

Congress’ exclusive power to coin money doesn’t prevent private individuals from coining currency

The gold standard doesn’t necessitate 100% reserves

Read Full Post »

U.S. ConstitutionSince World War II, the American public has been regularly lied to and misled by various mass media sources that a Declaration of War under the United States Constitution is unnecessary, outmoded and/or only symbolic.

Article I, Section 8, which grants enumerated powers to Congress, grants Congress the power “[t]o declare War.”

Therefore, any references to war in the Constitution relate to this specific power.

The proof that a Declaration of War under the U.S. Constitution isn’t symbolic comes from the U.S. Constitution itself, which states in the Third Amendment that:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Given that the Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is still in effect, not having been amended by a subsequent amendment, it demonstrates that only a Declaration of War by Congress, specifically under Article I, Section 8, gives the Congress the authority to quarter soldiers in the houses of Americans, in a manner prescribed by law, and if there is only a so-called authorization under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, or some presidential executive action, such quartering would be unconstitutional and illegal.

This amendment clearly puts the lie to anyone perpetrating the notion that a Declaration of War is only symbolic subsequent to the last official Declaration of War in World War II, and in the subsequent years.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »



Recovering Austrians

Supporting recovering Austrian Economics addicts and their families

Real Currencies

Supporting People and the Commonwealth and resisting the Money Power by defeating Usury