We are running a banking-industrial complex to put it poorly. This is expected when the blanket of government is stretched too far.

 

The Constitution grants the Congress no authority to delegate its power to regulate/coin money to a private central bank.

 

Where does the Constitution prohibit Congress from doing so?

 

The Constitution, for the most part, grants negative rights - basically outlines what the government cannot do. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that could reasonably lead you to conclude that Congress is prohibited from delegating its power to regulate money to a private central bank.

Well, Section 8 says that the Congress has the power to regulate coin/regulate money, absolutely. The context of the word "coin" in itself alludes to a stable commodity backing as legal tender. This alone runs contradictory to the support of a central bank. It would not have been feasible to specify an explicit negative right to a specific entity because that would loosely permit circumvention. This is presumably why all contemporary defense of the 'constitutional' authority for a central bank has been hiding behind the necessary and proper clause. What is necessary and proper about eroding the standard of living of constitutionally protected American citizens by defacing the currency?

 

You also have Section 10 not allowing states to emit bills of credit (ie paper money). The Founders knew of the danger of inflation as they witnessed it firsthand with the Continental dollar.

 

Are you saying the Fed should be public and not private? In other words, your opposition is not to the idea of a central bank per se, but to the private central bank we now have? I just want to understand your position.

I think one major problem with a very strict interpretation of the Constitution is that it is not an entirely specific document all that often, and it was written close to 225 years ago. Society has advanced in major leaps since the foundation of this country, and our interpretation of the Constitution should reflect those changes. This is where I get into arguments with the 2nd Amendment supporters, who I believe misinterpret the meaning of that amendment.

I think one major problem with a very strict interpretation of the Constitution is that it is not an entirely specific document all that often, and it was written close to 225 years ago. Society has advanced in major leaps since the foundation of this country, and our interpretation of the Constitution should reflect those changes. This is where I get into arguments with the 2nd Amendment supporters, who I believe misinterpret the meaning of that amendment.

 

The same way I feel the due process clause of the 14th is misinterpreted. Regardless, how to interpret the Constitution is a philosophical debate, and theres really no right or wrong wayto do it.

 

As far as the 2nd Amendment goes, if you look into the purpose of the Bill of Rights, its clear it was intended to allow the people to bear arms to defend themselves from the newly formed Central government. I agree that if you want to read it literally, this should only be allowed in a militia. However, when the federal government restricts the rights and practices of individual militias, that point becomes obsolete, because the intended protection no longer exists. The state militias are basically the national guard, which is now mostly controlled b ythe same federal government it was designed to protect against.

 

You can't argue that the amendment is outdated based on a belief that we no longer need to use arms to protect ourselves from our oh so trustworthy federal government. By that same token we can sat that the 3rd Amendment is outdated because our government would never quarter soliders, or that the 1st is outdated because our government would never ban all non state controlled media sources. Without a base princuiple which to guide ourselves, the law can be too easily changed on the whims of the ruling class and the elite. This is a direct path to fascism.