Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘United States Code’

On June 25, 2015, from the article, ‘Words no longer have meaning’: U.S. justice Scalia apoplectic on ‘pure applesauce’ Obamacare ruling, I pointed out Justice Scalia’s Obamacare wording hypocrisy, where he said that “words no longer have meaning” in reference to the majority 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on whether “the State” referred only to the 13 U.S. States that have set up health care exchanges, or whether it also includes the U.S. federal government.

Scalia’s hypocrisy relates to him saying that the Second Amendment pertaining to the right to keep and bear arms allows for reasonable restrictions when it clearly says that right “shall not be infringed.”

So who is he to claim that “words no longer have meaning” in the context of this case, and given the scathing nature of his dissenting opinion, I find it appropriate to call him out on his hypocrisy in this regard.

From an intensive layman’s study of the U.S. Constitution over the years, I tend to suspect he’s right with his decision in this case, as the words “the United States” is used in both the Constitution and the United States Code to refer to the U.S. federal government, whereas “States” are used to the several states.

Check out the comments section for my various comments and responses, including from someone who chastised me for allegedly using hyperbole in saying:

Scalia has no credibility in taking exception with the Court’s interpretation of words, since he misinterprets the Second Amendment, which clearly says the right of the people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed,” in saying that reasonable gun control limits are allowed.

For more on Justice Scalia, see my article, Charlie Rose’s interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Read Full Post »

In 1935, Cret designed the Seal of the Board o...

The claim that the Federal Reserve was given a 99-year charter set to expire in 2012 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 2012, and there was never a 99-year charter for the Federal Reserve.

Read Full Post »

Obverse of the Great Seal of the United States.

Some point to the United States Code (USC) to claim that the United States is a federal corporation, and not a union of states as described in the original Constitution.

From Title 28, Part VI, Chapter 176, Subchapter A, Section 3002 of the USC:

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

If you look at the context of that definition, it becomes clear that it’s not saying that the United States is a federal corporation, but rather, it’s referring to federal corporations incorporated by the United States.

At the beginning of the section, it says: “As used in this chapter:

Therefore, the reference to the “United States” as “a federal corporation” is only applicable to Title 28, Part VI, Chapter 176 of the United States Code.

Even within that limited context, it’s not referring to the United States as a federal corporation. If that was the intent, it would have been defined as “the United States, a Federal corporation.”

Looking at a different subchapter of the same chapter, namely, Subchapter D, Section 3306 (Remedies of the United States), (a):

(1) avoidance of the transfer or obligation to the extent necessary to satisfy the debt to the United States;

If the meaning of  “(A) a Federal corporation” is substituted, we get:

(1) avoidance of the transfer or obligation to the extent necessary to satisfy the debt to a Federal corporation.

Examples of United States federal corporations can be found here.

In my article, A Constitution for the United States of America or of the United States?, I show how the Founding Fathers who signed the Constitution drew no distinction between the two, despite the claim that the United States of America is a nation and the United States is a corporation.

Read Full Post »

hatrickpenry

AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE ALTERNATIVE MEDIA

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