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

[tokeprep]

I meant it was used to facilitate the abolishment, those practices were alive and well before and after 1791. Still waiting on that citing I asked for.

And after. For decades after; for a century after; for centuries after. The words should have meant freedom for all all along, certainly, and yet they didn't. The use of those words to "faciliate the abolishment" was not an exercise of original intent.

What citing do you want? Where's your citing about women having the right to vote and slaves being entitled to freedom under the constitution? And I'm curious, what was the original intent of the South Carolina or Georgia delegations?

 

[tokeprep]

Care to differentiate between the two? I mean with you doing the work and presentation of course I have a garden to tend.

"Note" in the UCC specifically excludes Federal Reserve Notes. Period.

 

[twostrokenut]

Which one?

Off the top of my head why not find that statute that allows the Treasury to currently to put us notes into circulation.

Then find the one that facilitates destruction of the ones that can currently be put into circulation.

If you find the one that facilitates the removal from circulation of the old inflated war notes, and old certificates and such then it doesn't count since the one currently on the books facilitates putting them in circulation now.

 

[twostrokenut]

"Note" in the UCC specifically excludes Federal Reserve Notes. Period.

Show it then I would have no problem discussing it or admitting I was wrong about it. I never recall citing the UCC definition of note including them or excluding them. But the UCC is not the issuing authority for them so what's the point?

 

[twostrokenut]

I am noticing you have nothing to say about me accusing you of being UB with a different screen name. Miss that part?

 

[twostrokenut]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order[/URL]]To date, U.S. courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order, and a 1995 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll.[SUP][9][/SUP] Congress was able to overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it during the period of 1939 to 1983 until the Supreme Court ruled in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha that the "legislative veto" represented "the exercise of legislative power" without "bicameral passage followed by presentment to the President."[SUP][10][/SUP] The loss of the legislative veto has caused Congress to look for alternative measures to override executive orders such as refusing to approve funding necessary to carry out certain policy measures contained with the order or to legitimize policy mechanisms. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.[SUP][11][/SUP]

I didn't ignore it, I said it wasn't the law, because it's not. The president can only make law with the cooperation of congress.

So do you just make it up as you go?

 

[tokeprep]

I am noticing you have nothing to say about me accusing you of being UB with a different screen name. Miss that part?

Since I point out his bullshit to the same degree that I point out other bullshit, that wouldn't make much sense.

If you've noticed, I have no consistent allies or enemies in this forum. We may disagree about the monetary system and yet agree about the Second Amendment, where I would argue original intent is exceedingly important. I merely follow reason.

 

[twostrokenut]

And after. For decades after; for a century after; for centuries after. The words should have meant freedom for all all along, certainly, and yet they didn't. The use of those words to "faciliate the abolishment" was not an exercise of original intent.

What citing do you want? Where's your citing about women having the right to vote and slaves being entitled to freedom under the constitution? And I'm curious, what was the original intent of the South Carolina or Georgia delegations?

I want the one I asked for.

The one that cites the Constitution denying women the right to vote and denying freedom to slaves. Still waiting because you said the Constitution facilitated these things. You said it was written for white landowners not by white landowners.

Your foot taste good?

"Facilitate the abolishment" are MY words.

Like I said this should be for another thread as these things don't affect the Economy now.

 

[twostrokenut]

Since I point out his bullshit to the same degree that I point out other bullshit, that wouldn't make much sense.

If you've noticed, I have no consistent allies or enemies in this forum. We may disagree about the monetary system and yet agree about the Second Amendment, where I would argue original intent is exceedingly important. I merely follow reason.

Me neither I merely agree or disagree to different extents. Only reason I carried it this long was to learn what "others in this forum have learned when they asserted such" or whatever to that effect. I believe free markets were established here originally and accomplished what you think the Fed has. I think the framers knew to keep the intrinsic money in The Peoples hands cause The People know what's best for The People.

But hey when was there a free market last??

Markets are just too big and complicated for anyone or group to claim to be able to manipulate them for a positive outcome. Obama, Timmy, Bernanke, Dem, Lib, Rep, Con, Neo-Con whatever or whomever. They are like equations, if manipulated on one side the other side must balance out, otherwise you have to get creative and do weird shit like hold interest rates down when they should go up to make things seem OK. It's a band-aid to the problem and you hail the band-aid as the miracle cure......Especially with globalization. History tells us that doing so "for the greater good" is prolly power trying to gain power, not trying to free humanity and results in the opposite. It's a noble cause that falls short in implementation, every time.

 

[tokeprep]

Off the top of my head why not find that statute that allows the Treasury to currently to put us notes into circulation.

Never said it didn't exist, only that your interpretation of that fact was totally wrong.

Then find the one that facilitates destruction of the ones that can currently be put into circulation.

Never called that irrelevant either.

If you find the one that facilitates the removal from circulation of the old inflated war notes, and old certificates and such then it doesn't count since the one currently on the books facilitates putting them in circulation now.

Anything presently in circulation that's eligible for redemption is part of the public debt until it's redeemed.

 

[tokeprep]

Show it then I would have no problem discussing it or admitting I was wrong about it. I never recall citing the UCC definition of note including them or excluding them. But the UCC is not the issuing authority for them so what's the point?

UCC 3-102: "This Article applies to negotiable instruments. It does not apply to money..." Also: "Regulations of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and operating circulars of the Federal Reserve Banks supersede any inconsistent provision of this Article to the extent of the inconsistency."

Do tell us, what other "issuing authority" is there for notes? Let's go look at the definitions there too!

 

[tokeprep]

So do you just make it up as you go?

You didn't quote an executive order, you quoted a speech. Do you not know the difference?

 

[tokeprep]

I want the one I asked for.

The one that cites the Constitution denying women the right to vote and denying freedom to slaves. Still waiting because you said the Constitution facilitated these things. You said it was written for white landowners not by white landowners.

Your foot taste good?

"Facilitate the abolishment" are MY words.

Like I said this should be for another thread as these things don't affect the Economy now.

This is laughable. Slavery existed in this country under that constitution until the 1860s. Constitutional amendments were passed expressly for the purpose of ensuring rights for both slaves and women. Why are they amending the constitution if it already provided those rights?

 

[twostrokenut]

Never said it didn't exist, only that your interpretation of that fact was totally wrong.



Never called that irrelevant either.



Anything presently in circulation that's eligible for redemption is part of the public debt until it's redeemed.

Ah so FRN's aren't able to be redeemed according to you so they are not to be used to pay the public debt? How will the public pay it then you think they will pay it in gold?

 

[tokeprep]

Me neither I merely agree or disagree to different extents. Only reason I carried it this long was to learn what "others in this forum have learned when they asserted such" or whatever to that effect. I believe free markets were established here originally and accomplished what you think the Fed has. I think the framers knew to keep the intrinsic money in The Peoples hands cause The People know what's best for The People.

But hey when was there a free market last??

So you would be comfortable with Galen performing your heart surgery then, based on his ancient knowledge? You would prefer Galen over a modern surgeon with knowledge of modern medicine? Interesting.

Markets are just too big and complicated for anyone or group to claim to be able to manipulate them for a positive outcome. Obama, Timmy, Bernanke, Dem, Lib, Rep, Con, Neo-Con whatever or whomever. They are like equations, if manipulated on one side the other side must balance out, otherwise you have to get creative and hold interest rates down to make things seem OK. Especially with globalization. History tells us that doing so "for the greater good" is prolly power trying to gain power, not trying to free humanity and results in the opposite. It's a noble cause that falls short in implementation, every time.

The economy isn't a zero sum game. When you incentivize productive activities, you generate additional wealth. When you finance building or growing or production with fractional reserve money, you literally are financing something from nothing, by your own description of how it works. Your own position is that this would not be possible in an Austrian system.

 

[twostrokenut]

UCC 3-102: "This Article applies to negotiable instruments. It does not apply to money..." Also: "Regulations of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and operating circulars of the Federal Reserve Banks supersede any inconsistent provision of this Article to the extent of the inconsistency."

Do tell us, what other "issuing authority" is there for notes? Let's go look at the definitions there too!

So your contention is that a FRN is a non-negotiable instrument?

The issuing authority for FRN's is The Federal Reserve Act written by Congress.

We've already been over this.

 

[tokeprep]

Ah so FRN's aren't able to be redeemed according to you so they are not to be used to pay the public debt? How will the public pay it then you think they will pay it in gold?

No, no, you aren't following the wording in your own post. You referred to old currency redemption in the last part, not Federal Reserve Note redemption. You can redeem Federal Reserve Notes for an equivalent value of Federal Reserve Notes. Never said otherwise. Likewise, Federal Reserve Notes can be used to pay the public debt. Never said otherwise.

What I did say is that old currency--which is what you explicitly referred to--is part of the public debt (US Notes, silver certificates, etc.) and remains so until redeemed for Federal Reserve Notes. As a practical matter, since that outstanding old currency is far more valuable held as collectibles, it probably never will redeemed, and will remain outstanding as public debt.

 

[twostrokenut]

You didn't quote an executive order, you quoted a speech. Do you not know the difference?

Of course I do I actually read it.... I am pretty sure it was a personal letter too numbnuts. The EO post was just to show you were wrong about your statement that the Prez cannot make law without Congress....it was just factually wrong.

 

[tokeprep]

So your contention is that a FRN is a non-negotiable instrument?

The issuing authority for FRN's is The Federal Reserve Act written by Congress.

We've already been over this.

UCC Article 3 explicitly excludes money from being a negotiable instrument. Period. So yes, absolutely, Federal Reserve Notes aren't negotiable instruments. By definition they aren't, and definitions are the most important thing, remember?

And where does your issuing authority describe a negotiable instrument, pray tell? You've certainly never shared that!

 

[tokeprep]

Of course I do I actually read it.... I am pretty sure it was a personal letter too numbnuts. The EO post was just to show you were wrong about your statement that the Prez cannot make law without Congress....it was just factually wrong.

The statement you just made is what's factually wrong. The president can only issue executive orders based on executive authority granted either by the constitution or by legislation passed by congress. The president can not unilaterally make law as he pleases.

The speech you referenced was not an executive order and was not law. Thus it was not authority for what you claimed at all.