From: Darrell Parfitt (eng5dgp@titan.vcu.edu)
Date: Mon Sep 22 1997 - 13:26:34 MDT
On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, The Free Marketeer wrote:
> > Yes, the power to print currency is reserved to the Fed in the
> > Constitution. But one must ask, "Why?"
>
> There is intentionally no provision for printing "legal tender" in
> the so-called Constitution, only coining "lawful money". That the
> private Federal Reserve managed to defraud the Congress for a power
> it did not possess, confiscate gold from the American people, make
> debt liabilities the only "legal" medium of exchange, et al. is
> merely in keeping in line with the intentions of the malevolent
> powers behind it. Recall what the so-called 14th Amendment states:
I have a semantics problem with this paragraph. I understand
referring to the Constitution of the United States as the so-called
Constitution, as a constitution is a document that governs the legal
workings of an organization, and many people think that the legal system often
subverts and ignores the provisions of the constitution in pursuit of
their political projects. However, an amendment is simply something in a
document that was put in later through a process described in the original
document. The 14th amendment was not in the Constitution as originally
written and was added later. It is generally called the 14th
Amendment, but that is because it is in fact the 14th Amendment, and not
because of some disinformation program.
Darrell Parfitt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:57 MST