Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy

[twostrokenut]

I would have to say: only if society accords him/her that right. I consider it a necessary artifice like all other "universal" human rights. cn

So society says no one has the right to grow weed. The same society we are all talking about here. The one that exists on the federal level in the sense we are all citizens of the US. Then a state, a higher authority says that it's smaller society may grow because it's society is independent of the other and retains its right to redefine what is "medicinal".

So there is no right to grow on the most basic individual level, outside state and federal society then?

 

[twostrokenut]

The Milam court expressly says that the power described in Juilliard--which is to establish a national currency and make it lawful money--has been delegated to the Fed under 12 USC 411. So yes, that would mean Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money!

Read it again for yourself: "The power so precisely described in Juilliard has been delegated to the Federal Reserve System under the provisions of 12 U.S.C. § 411."

I know, I know, what is "the power"? Fortunately, we have the answer in the quotation from that case immediately preceding that line in Milam: ". . . Under the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, and to issue circulating notes for the money borrowed, its power to define the quality and force of those notes as currency is as broad as the like power over a metallic currency under the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. Under the two powers, taken together, Congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the national government or private individuals. . . ."

Now once again, just to make it exceedingly clear, the Milam court again: "The power...described in Juilliard has been delegated to the Federal Reserve...under...12 U.S.C. § 411." What is that power? The power to make paper currency lawful money. Period.


[/FONT][/COLOR]Who made this rule that something cannot be what it is redeemable for? You? Because you don't have anything that says that, you're just asserting that it must be the case. Since it's fiat currency we're talking about, it makes total logical sense that the note would only be redeemable for other fiat currency notes.

I really don't understand why you won't listen to me about the code. The code does NOT "keep tabs on current statutory law" and that is NOT "its function." The code is merely the collection of all the laws enacted by congress; the statute as originally passed by congress remains the law until congress repeals it, expressly provides for its repeal, or amends it. The code is NOT updated to remove anachronistic provisions that make no sense given other legislation congress passed; the code is NOT updated to reflect court decisions; the code is NOT updated to correct confusing language and tie up loose ends.

When congress originally passed that statute, Federal Reserve Notes were actually backed by something and actually redeemable. This changed. Accordingly, the redemption provision no longer meant anything meaningful. The only body with the authority to remove the redemption provision from the code is congress, and they must explicitly do it in new legislation enacted by both houses of congress and signed by the president. Absent that action, the text remains in the code, even if it makes no substantive sense, and even though courts have ruled that Federal Reserve Notes can be redeemed in other Federal Reserve Notes.


For the love of all that is good, please stop sounding so ignorant. 31 USC 5115 has NOT been updated to reflect "all case laws associated with the current wording." It has NEVER been updated to do that because that's not how the code works! The text of 31 USC 5115 is based solely on the statutes that were passed by congress. Reading the statute in the code tells you absolutely nothing about how the courts have interpreted it.



I don't think the court is bypassing or redefining anything. The court merely says that the authorization for Federal Reserve Notes that congress gave to the Fed in 12 USC 411 was properly delegated: the Fed, through that provision of the code, exercises the power described in Juilliard, which is to print paper currency that is lawful money. The court didn't dismiss the exchange of notes for notes, and I didn't ignore any part of the case.

What is this about the Fed's admission about the definition of lawful money? As I already said, on that page you linked to earlier the Fed uses "lawful money" to refer to both Federal Reserve Notes and United States Notes. They make no distinction and no admission! The fact that United States Notes had different characteristics is totally irrelevant. Indeed, let's look at the text of the Milam opinion again in order to try and make this clear. You argument here seems to be that Juilliard only endorses paper currency with the characteristics of United States Notes as lawful money; basically, Federal Reserve Notes cannot possibly be lawful money under that case because they're so different from Federal Reserve Notes.

Now here's what the Milam court said, once again: "The power so precisely described in Juilliard has been delegated to the Federal Reserve System under the provisions of 12 U.S.C. § 411." If "the power" in Juilliard is merely the power to issue paper currency with the characteristics of United States Notes, then the Milam court in that sentence is saying that the power has been delegated to the Fed under 12 USC 411. 12 USC 411 isn't the authorizing statute for United States Notes but for Federal Reserve Notes. If the Milam court was reading Juilliard as you read it and have repeatedly claimed they must be reading it, why are they saying the Fed has the power to issue United States Notes under 12 USC 411?



Alright, your first claim makes zero sense because this is just a definition of a word used in the code. Anything fitting this definition is "money" where that word appears in the code. If Federal Reserve Notes and the Japanese yen fit the definition, then they are "money" under the code. Article 3 expressly states that "money" is not a negotiable instrument.

You seem to be agreeing that Federal Reserve Notes are "money" under this definition, and that would make them "money" in Article 3, which means by definition Federal Reserve Notes are NOT negotiable instruments in commercial law.



You know why I don't even need to read anything that you wrote here? Because of the section I already quoted, UCC 3-102:

"(a) This Article applies to negotiable instruments. It does not apply to money, to payment orders governed by Article 4A, or to securities governed by Article 8."

One more time, folks, the definition of the word "money" in the UCC: "(24) "Money" means a medium of exchange authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government and includes a monetary unit of account established by an intergovernmental organization or by agreement between two or more nations." Notice this definition has absolutely nothing to do with "lawful money."

And yet again folks, 12 USC 411 to wrap this end up: "Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized."

Because Federal Reserve Notes are money--a medium of exchange authorized by the United States government--nothing you just discussed from Article 3 is applicable. Nothing.

The power was delegated under the provisions of 12usc411!!!! You are correct!!! Yay!!!!

12usc411 says they are Legal Tender not Lawful money!!! Also authorized for no purpose other than deposits at member banks!!!!


Fuck it don't read anything I write certainly don't quote me anymore either in a shitty attempt at getting in the last word as a substitute for your not being able tell the difference between a law and a statute.

The difference between the Lawful Paper Money that Congress did establish and The Feds currency which is issued and authorized by Congress "for no other purpose than making advances to Federal Reserve Banks"

The difference between Legal Tender and Lawful Money as defined by Congress.

The difference between commercial law, fundamental law and statutory law.

The difference between an Act of Congress and the Constitutional authority that enables any Act.

You claim the court has granted the Fed the ability to usurp Congressional authority.
You have to claim that to support your bullshit.
Feds authority is clearly defined in The Federal Reserve Act which is Congressional Authority and cannot be changed by your court case. A Constitutional Amendment is needed for that man this is 7th grade shit.

"The power" is the power to borrow "money" and issue circulating notes for the money borrowed....."the other power" is the power to regulate the value of the notes only!!!! Which were put into circulation by borrowing actual lawful money!!!
Fuckin period dude this was directly from you, you just literally failed to understand what you just quoted!!!

Who made the rule something can not be what something is redeemable for?? Nature? Common Sense?? Fiat currency for equal fiat currency is not a redemption!! Should we look up the def of redemption??

Negotiable fiat currency that may be redeemed for non-negotiable fiat currency is not the same thing but is all that's lawfully left because redemption in specie has been eliminated yet the non-negotiable fiat currency has been successfully argued as lawful during the Civil War!!!! "May be redeemed in lawful money" means you can choose to use what the Fed and Congress use as money in order to put Fed notes in circulation!!!

It is a fail safe for not ending up as a broke nation because we indulged in private credit period end of story. This fail safe must lawfully remain because it is Lawful Remedy to opt out of government abuse of bills of credit man you give the Framers zero credit a handful of them were severely smart.

We all know lawful money on the credit of The United States is deposited with the Fed to get fed notes circulating, then re-deposited and expanded. Thus what is on deposit that facilitates the issuance of the notes is indeed the lawful money.

The Fed does not have the power to coin money or emit or produce lawful money only the power to create elastic currency by depositing notes at member banks for elastic reserves to facilitate the lie there is a surplus in the Treasury and that our taxes cover our obligations.

This is how everyone is able to receive "benefits" while we operate at a deficit and live under a huge public debt. Keep ignoring this is the reality and all the "benefits" we enjoy will disappear really fast which is worst case scenario imho but hey fuck it we all have the choice to become dependent now don't we?

Fuckin put me on ignore instead of failing to substantiate your own shit I really don't give a fuck either way.

 

[tokeprep]

Yes I addressed that by saying The UCC definition still retains negotiability to its definition that only pertains to commerce and specifically excludes lawful money from being negotiable by UCC definition.......because that must be determined by actual government law, not the law of commerce.

I actually treated that definition as statutory only to find just now that.....................
"The Uniform Commercial Code, as the product of private organizations, is not itself the law, but only a recommendation of the laws that should be adopted in the states."

Seems the handy work of more "scholars" you put your faith so blindly in.

First of all, the UCC says nothing about lawful money, so I have no idea what your first paragraph is talking about.

Second, you really aren't doing yourself any favors at all today. The Uniform Commercial Code is indeed "the product of private organizations" and "not itself the law"; it is indeed "only a recommendation." Now, guess what happens when states adopt the Uniform Commercial Code as state law? It becomes state law. Do you know how many states have adopted Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code as the law, Twostroke? Fifty.

The Uniform Commercial Code is statutory law in all fifty states of this country.

Statutes must have basis in Fundamental Law i.e. Constitutional Law. Meaning Congress is supposed to check with the Constitution first before legislating and voting for a statute.
It's called the highest law of the land for a reason ya know? That's why military and judiciary and Executive and Legislators and even local Sherriffs swear an oath to it ya know?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_law

If by have a basis in constitutional law you mean that statutes must be constitutional, I certainly agree. But that doesn't mean that statutes are not laws.

I assure you I completely understand the difference between constitutional law and statutory law. Constitutional law is immutable; congress and the courts are bound to the text and cannot alter it without amending the constitution. Courts are the ultimate arbiters of what is constitutional and what is not. Statutes, on the other hand, exist at the pleasure of the congress, which can create, amend, and extinguish at its pleasure.

This distinction does not mean that statutory law isn't actually law.

I was talking notes but I use the Fundamental American definition of Us Notes per the Civil War for this argument. You are citing one supposedly in a court case and pretending there's one in the Federal Reserve Act.

Indeed you pretend it would take much less than a Constitutional Amendment to give The Fed the power to coin money.

The reality is Congress coins money, deposits it in the Fed, then declares the product of this transaction legal tender on taxes and the public debt which facilitates its elasticity and being able to serve as unlimited credit and thus not having to worry what voters want because voters are no longer funding government spending........what little voters are left that are actually not net consumers of taxes are the substance that bonds the borrowing.

I never said the Federal Reserve Act defined the word, but Milam certainly does make it exceedingly clear.

I don't think it would take a constitutional amendment to give the Fed the power to coin money. Congress would only need to amend the statutes it has enacted pursuant to its coinage power and delegate that power to the Fed; I am absolutely confident the courts at all levels would uphold this.

 

[tokeprep]

Fuck it don't read anything I write certainly don't quote me anymore either in a shitty attempt at getting in the last word as a substitute for your not being able tell the difference between a law and a statute. The difference between Legal Tender and Lawful Money. The difference between commercial law, fundamental law and statutory law.

The difference between an Act of Congress and the Constitutional authority that enables any Act.

Fuckin put me on ignore instead of failing to substantiate your own shit I really don't give a fuck either way.

Everything you said about Article 3 is predicated on Federal Reserve Notes not being "money" as the word is defined in the UCC. Since that initial assumption is incorrect, how could I possibly reply substantively to what you said? You took something that is expressly inapplicable to Federal Reserve Notes and then tried to apply it--it makes no sense.

The Uniform Commercial Code is the law and is a statute in all fifty states of the union.

The difference between "legal tender" and "lawful money" is irrelevant since the words aren't in the definition we're talking about.

The difference between commercial law, fundamental law, and statutory law is puzzling, since commercial law is statutory law--Article 3 on negotiable instruments is a statute.

According to the supreme court, congress has the constitutional authority to enact a law authorizing paper currency and making it lawful money. As long as the act is a proper exercise of constitutional power, there is no difference. The law is the law.

 

[tokeprep]

Oh, and the edited part:

You claim the court has granted the Fed the ability to usurp Congressional authority. You have to claim that to support your bullshit. The Fed does not have the power to coin money or emit or produce lawful money only the power to create elastic currency by depositing notes at member banks for elastic reserves to facilitate the lie there is a surplus in the Treasury and that our taxes cover our obligations.

This is how everyone is able to receive "benefits" while we operate at a deficit and live under a huge public debt. Keep ignoring this is the reality and all the "benefits" we enjoy will disappear really fast which is worst case scenario imho but hey fuck it we all have the choice to become dependent now don't we?

Congress created the Fed and delegated its power to it. How is the Fed usurping congressional authority? All they can do is what congress told them to do and/or permitted them to do.

I agree that the Fed doesn't have the power to coin money because that power has not been delegated to it. But that point is totally irrelevant in this discussion.

As for the deficit, it's not funded by money printing. 90% of the United States national debt is not held by the Federal Reserve.

 

[tokeprep]

duh I raised the former.

the 13 expressly asserted the right that no person shall be a slave unless for lawful punishment which means it was already there and retained by the 9th.

It was already there? If it was already there, why did they amend the constitution to insert it? If it's so plainly already there, why do we need to make it extra clear?

Exactly as the right to produce, transport and sell alcohol was retained before the 18th expressly prohibited it.

Except such a "right" didn't exist. Some governments banned the production, transport, and sale of alcohol entirely from their jurisdictions. Who successfully argued that all of those laws were unconstitutional? No one. Governments still prohibit the production and sale of alcohol, even after the amendment.

9th works for money too

Federal has right to coin money, turn state gold into federal gold....... and emit bills of credit based on its credit backing which is taxes.
State has right to coin gold and silver as legal tender to pay taxes
Any other money rights reserved for the people such as the right to choose not to earn any money or the right to choose what currency they want to conduct business with as they decide among themselves.

If you were the supreme court I would care about your opinion on the extent of the congress' powers. Alas, you are not the supreme court, and your opinion is irrelevant, since it does not reflect the law.

 

[tokeprep]

This is just you being bitter and ignoring facts and taking the typical blame America position.

The framers who had that intent are all that matter since their intentions were indeed ratified and still are etched in time............You think they were able to outsmart the others who were perhaps a little more "unlearned" and chose to not study or otherwise take constructive advantage of all the free time they enjoyed because of the economic success of slavery?

I do. Those guys had massive libraries.

You are further ignoring Anthony Johnson and the fact many slaves enjoyed freedom even during the times of slavery. Like I said Red Herring. But at least I provided you an economic relationship.

So you admit it is the foundation not the torch....who cares if both prove you completely wrong about original intent?

Your answer is that the framers who had that intent are the only ones who matter. Brilliant. Everyone else who didn't have that intent? Oh yeah, they don't count--just ignore them. Don't let their original intents stain that other original intent that I chose to focus on!

That's called ignoring reality in order to support an idealized version of it that never was, because guess what? Those dozens of other people actually did exist, and it was their voting and their work that led to the text we have and the ratification of the document. Ignoring their original intents undermine the idea of original intent in the first place.

 

[tokeprep]

Ever hear of minimum income requirement to file? If you make under a certain amount you are just not required to file one.

If your earnings come from self-employment, you're obligated to file after $400, meaning that any self-employed person practically must file.

If your earnings come from employment, your employer is withholding federal taxes from your check for you. If you make less than $10,000, you probably don't need to file, true.

Are these minimum income requirements really that meaningful then? How many people do you know who make less than $10,000 a year?

The IRS has the ability to come after you if you lie on it or if you don't pay if you are required to file, sure, but they must go through the appropriate local municipalities first to establish authority to complete a seizure on land, not simply decree seizure under the laws of commerce which reside in the sea. I don't live in the sea ya know?

I would expect someone talking of English Common Law to recognize laws of Admiralty that have shaky foundations (waves lol) of seizures on the high seas.

You're correct in both cases, but the IRS can also come after you if you owe federal tax that isn't paid, even if you don't have the legal obligation to file a tax return based on your income level. Whether you have to file a return is a distinct question from whether you must pay tax.

And the IRS is certainly content to use those local laws to come after people. I've seen them do it, and it can be pretty brutal--seizures, liens, garnishments, every tool to make life miserable.

 

[twostrokenut]

[/COLOR][/B]
First of all, the UCC says nothing about lawful money, so I have no idea what your first paragraph is talking about.

My paragraph is about the UCC being incompetent to define such a thing.

 

[tokeprep]

I see you edited this again, so I'll pass over what I didn't touch:

The difference between the Lawful Paper Money that Congress did establish and The Feds currency which is issued and authorized by Congress "for no other purpose than making advances to Federal Reserve Banks"

You're misquoting the statute, you realize? It doesn't matter because that extra sentence doesn't make a difference anyway to the "lawful money" issue anyway.

Feds authority is clearly defined in The Federal Reserve Act which is Congressional Authority and cannot be changed by your court case. A Constitutional Amendment is needed for that man this is 7th grade shit.

The court case doesn't change the Federal Reserve Act at all, it's merely the reasoned dismissal of a challenge to the government's compliance with the act.

Why would you need a constitutional amendment? Courts interpret the words in legislation all the time. That's what they do.

"The power" is the power to borrow "money" and issue circulating notes for the money borrowed....."the other power" is the power to regulate the value of the notes only!!!! Which were put into circulation by borrowing actual lawful money!!!
Fuckin period dude this was directly from you, you just literally failed to understand what you just quoted!!!

Again: "The power so precisely described in Juilliard has been delegated to the Federal Reserve System under the provisions of 12 U.S.C. § 411."

How does this sentence make any sense if the court meant "the power" to mean what you just said they meant?

We all know lawful money on the credit of The United States is deposited with the Fed to get fed notes circulating, then re-deposited and expanded. Thus what is on deposit that facilitates the issuance of the notes is indeed the lawful money.

You realize only $300 million in United States Notes are authorized to be issued and that the government spends more than $10 billion every single day, right? How would this possibly make sense?

 

[twostrokenut]

[/COLOR][/B]


Second, you really aren't doing yourself any favors at all today. The Uniform Commercial Code is indeed "the product of private organizations" and "not itself the law"; it is indeed "only a recommendation." Now, guess what happens when states adopt the Uniform Commercial Code as state law? It becomes state law. Do you know how many states have adopted Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code as the law, Twostroke? Fifty.

The Uniform Commercial Code is statutory law in all fifty states of this country.

Really? Forget about Utah did you? Think they will pay federal taxes in silver and gold or use the UCC to pay in negotiable Fed notes?

 

[tokeprep]

My paragraph is about the UCC being incompetent to define such a thing.

The UCC doesn't purport to define what is lawful money, so I completely agree with you.

 

[tokeprep]

Really? Forget about Utah did you? Think they will pay federal taxes in silver and gold or use the UCC to pay in negotiable Fed notes?

How did I forget about Utah? Title 70A, Chapter 3 of the Utah Code is Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code.

I have no idea what the second part means. You don't "use the UCC" to pay anything. If the UCC specifically excludes something from its subject matter, the UCC is irrelevant.

 

[twostrokenut]

Oh, and the edited part:


[/B]
Congress created the Fed and delegated its power to it. How is the Fed usurping congressional authority? All they can do is what congress told them to do and/or permitted them to do.

I agree that the Fed doesn't have the power to coin money because that power has not been delegated to it. But that point is totally irrelevant in this discussion.

As for the deficit, it's not funded by money printing. 90% of the United States national debt is not held by the Federal Reserve.

Congress does not have the power to delegate the task of creating lawful money, to the Fed.
Court does not have the power to declare something lawful money without Congress.

The fed having power to coin money is totally relevant since you claim they have the power to issue lawful money, and not simply redeem in it.

As for the debt....the fed is the only holder that can issue expanding currency notes on its debt, something the other 90% doesn't have privilege to do.

So if the Fed holds 10% and can fractionally lend at least 10 times that, what's 10 x 10??

 

[twostrokenut]

I see you edited this again, so I'll pass over what I didn't touch:

Ya I really have to there is a shit ton of stuff going on here.

You're misquoting the statute, you realize? It doesn't matter because that extra sentence doesn't make a difference anyway to the "lawful money" issue anyway.

How so? There is no subsection to this statement, the only purpose for issuance is for reserves, then we borrow to create the expansion, that part isn't in there because we define it through our actions.

The court case doesn't change the Federal Reserve Act at all, it's merely the reasoned dismissal of a challenge to the government's compliance with the act.

Why would you need a constitutional amendment? Courts interpret the words in legislation all the time. That's what they do.

I have never disagreed there was a dismissal of Milam's challenge which was to redeem for silver or gold according to Milam's definition of lawful money, court upheld the other definition which is paper notes issued by the US directly, non-negotiable notes.

Court may possibly elaborate on what arms are but may not rule you have no right to bear them, that takes an amendment. Just as court may not redefine lawful money.



Again: "The power so precisely described in Juilliard has been delegated to the Federal Reserve System under the provisions of 12 U.S.C. § 411."

How does this sentence make any sense if the court meant "the power" to mean what you just said they meant?

you said

I know, I know, what is "the power"? Fortunately, we have the answer in the quotation from that case immediately preceding that line in Milam: ". . . Under the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, and to issue circulating notes for the money borrowed, its power to define the quality and force of those notes as currency is as broad as the like power over a metallic currency under the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. Under the two powers, taken together, Congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the national government or private individuals. . . ."

then I said

The power" is the power to borrow "money" and issue circulating notes for the money borrowed....."the other power" is the power to regulate the value of the notes only!!!! Which were put into circulation by borrowing actual lawful money!!!
Fuckin period dude this was directly from you, you just literally failed to understand what you just quoted!!!

Then you insist it is I that is misunderstanding "The power so precisely described in Juilliard has been delegated to the Federal Reserve System under the provisions of 12 U.S.C. § 411."

then you insist "under the provisions of 12usc411" are functionally irrelevant when in fact it defines the whole discussion and any power you seem to be misunderstanding.





You realize only $300 million in United States Notes are authorized to be issued and that the government spends more than $10 billion every single day, right? How would this possibly make sense?

see that $300 million is actually lingering from the Civil War....that was a shit ton of money back then...that would change of course if elastic currency were redeemed on a large scale....is that going to happen soon? Prolly not....... look how long it is taking for the concept to be acknowledged and how complex it is.

.....................

 

[twostrokenut]

The UCC doesn't purport to define what is lawful money, so I completely agree with you.

No it retains provisions to specifically exclude it, which is that paragraph you said you didn't know what I was talking about.

 

[twostrokenut]

How did I forget about Utah? Title 70A, Chapter 3 of the Utah Code is Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code.

I have no idea what the second part means. You don't "use the UCC" to pay anything. If the UCC specifically excludes something from its subject matter, the UCC is irrelevant.

Title 70A, chap3 is not what gives utah the right to use lawful gold and silver as state money that right comes from the Constitution.

I am using utah because they have both things going on right now simultaneously....not lawful paper money but functionally the same for this discussion. My question still is do you think Utah ppl will be paying any taxes with their gold/silver currency or will they use the provisions of the UCC to pay taxes in negotiable fiat instruments?

 

[twostrokenut]

Your answer is that the framers who had that intent are the only ones who matter. Brilliant. Everyone else who didn't have that intent? Oh yeah, they don't count--just ignore them. Don't let their original intents stain that other original intent that I chose to focus on!

That's called ignoring reality in order to support an idealized version of it that never was, because guess what? Those dozens of other people actually did exist, and it was their voting and their work that led to the text we have and the ratification of the document. Ignoring their original intents undermine the idea of original intent in the first place.

Who is ignoring the reality of the text that was written and who's sentiments actually made it to text? Everyone else who did not have that interest or had it for themselves and not others had to settle for the 3/5ths clause then deal with the irony of what they ratified to their dismay.

So I am just making this up lol right sure.

The "idealized version" you think I just made up is sitting anywhere on the web for anyone to read.

 

[twostrokenut]

I tried to just shrug this one off but:

• for the love of all that is good, please stop sounding so ignorant. 31 usc 5115 has not been updated to reflect "all case laws associated with the current wording." it has never been updated to do that because that's not how the code works! The text of 31 usc 5115 is basedsolely on the statutes that were passed by congress. Reading the statute in the code tells you absolutely nothing about how the courts have interpreted it.​

• 
  ​
• Really that's not how it works? Well it would have to be to support your theory court case....as in the one you are inaccurately citing.... could change or otherwise render it useless now would'n it. You have not claimed Milam and Julliard basically render parts of the code effectively irrelevant?
  
  
  

 

[tokeprep]

Congress does not have the power to delegate the task of creating lawful money, to the Fed.
Court does not have the power to declare something lawful money without Congress.

Congress can't delegate its powers? Courts can't interpret what the words in legislation mean? You can't possibly mean those things. Delegation is a well settled constitutional question; and the reason the court wrote a decision about "lawful money" is because congress didn't define it.

The fed having power to coin money is totally relevant since you claim they have the power to issue lawful money, and not simply redeem in it.

The fact that the Fed is authorized to issue a form of lawful money does not mean that they are authorized to issue any form of lawful money. They can't issue coins just as they can't issue United States Notes--the authority to do so is vested in other places.

As for the debt....the fed is the only holder that can issue expanding currency notes on its debt, something the other 90% doesn't have privilege to do.

So if the Fed holds 10% and can fractionally lend at least 10 times that, what's 10 x 10??

The Fed doesn't hold 10% that can be fractionally lent ten times. It's just sitting on their balance sheet.