Post Office to offer Bank Loans and Checking Accounts?


brianleepainter

Recommended Posts

Elizabeth Warren (part of the Leviathan) is pushing for the USPS(which is already dying, thankfully and inevitably) to offer bank loans and checking accounts, among other services, to help the poor. So, a public entity which has no money is going to offer money to the public :smile:

It looks like the near future will be stranger than fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pelosi's husband got the contracts for building new Post Office...I guess that is based on the central government theory which is build many more sites that can continually fail and lose money!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elizabeth Warren (part of the Leviathan) is pushing for the USPS(which is already dying, thankfully and inevitably) to offer bank loans and checking accounts, among other services, to help the poor. So, a public entity which has no money is going to offer money to the public :smile:

It looks like the near future will be stranger than fiction.

C'thulu for postmaster general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Post Office is sanctioned in the U.S. Constitution, so would shutting it down require an amendment?

Probably. It is also that sanction that keeps the post office as an official legal monopoly for first class mail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Post Office is sanctioned in the U.S. Constitution, so would shutting it down require an amendment?

Yes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Congress shall have power to . . . establish Post Offices and post Roads;"

1. A grant of power is not the same as a requirement to exercise that power.

2. Nothing in the Constitution says Congress has to finance these post offices.

That is not how congress and the courts have interpreted this

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word "shall" generally means "must."

Heritage has a wonderful site to understand much of the Constitution:

Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress possessed the power to establish and regulate post offices. The Framers easily transferred the power into the Constitution and gave Congress the additional authority to establish postal roads. At the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin suggested that Congress should also have the "power to provide for cutting canals where deemed necessary," and James Madison sought to enlarge the power "to grant charters of incorporation where the interest of the U.S. might require & the legislative provisions of individual States may be incompetent." However, the Founders turned aside these extensions on the ground that such powers were already assumed in the power to regulate trade.

Following the adoption of the Constitution, the Act of September 22, 1789 (1 Stat. 70), established (at first temporarily) a post office and created the Office of the Postmaster General. By that time, seventy-five post offices and over 2000 miles of post roads already existed. What was originally thought to be a rather simple and benign power soon turned controversial; legislatures disagreed over whether this power merely enabled Congress to direct where post offices should be located and on what roads mail should be carried, or whether it authorized Congress to construct and maintain roads and post offices within the states. Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe doubted whether the clause granted Congress the power to construct roads, whereas many in Congress asserted that it did have such power. In fact, most congressional enactments merely designated post roads, but in 1833, Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States that the words "to establish" encompass a power to create roads as well as to designate them. Story maintained, however, that once built, a post road is subject to the laws of the state. In 1845, in the case of Searight v. Stokes, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney held that mail carriages are immune to state road taxes on the Cumberland Road, but, over the dissent of Justice Peter V. Daniel, he specifically avoided the question of the power of Congress to construct post roads.

Story's view has stronger textual support than does Jefferson's. The power "to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4), and the power of Congress to "establish" inferior federal courts (Article III, Section 1) clearly contemplate the creation of such laws and courts, respectively. Congress would seem to have a similar creative power in establishing post roads.

The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Post Office Clause broadly. In Ex parte Jackson (1877), the Supreme Court held that congressional power over the mail is indeed far-reaching, including the right to determine what can and cannot be mailed:

The validity of legislation describing what should be carried, and its weight and form, and the charges to which it should be subjected, has never been questioned....The power possessed by Congress embraces the regulation of the entire Postal System of the country. The right to designate what shall be carried necessarily involves the right to determine what shall be excluded.

In In re Rapier (1892), the Court held that Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over the mail, which includes the right to prohibit the circulation of materials that are immoral and injurious, such as lottery tickets. The Court in Brennan v. United States Postal Service (1978) reaffirmed the government's monopoly over the postal system; and in United States Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Ass'ns (1981), the Court upheld a federal law prohibiting the placing of unstamped mail in home mailboxes.

During World War I, the government's power to ban incendiary and disloyal material figured largely in prosecutions under the Espionage Act of 1917. See Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten (1917). Later cases dealt with laws prohibiting the mailing of obscene material. Roth v. United States (1957); United States v. Reidel (1971). Meanwhile, lower courts added that regulations governing what materials could be mailed are subject to First Amendment scrutiny. See United States v. Handler (1974). The Supreme Court has affirmed that, like all other delegated powers, the post-office power is subject to extrinsic restraints such as the First Amendment. For example, in Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Ass'ns, the Supreme Court acknowledged the broad sweep of the Post Office Clause, all the while holding that its broad power cannot be exercised in a way that abridges the rights protected under the First Amendment.

Another area of recent contention relevant to the Post Office Clause is the franking privilege, which exempts all federal governmental officials from paying postage when conducting official business. The frank itself is a reproduction of the Member's signature, which is affixed to the mailed item in lieu of a stamp. Members of the House of Commons and Members of the Continental Congress enjoyed the privilege. The First Congress retained the privilege in 1789. The act of 1895, 28 Stat. 601, 622 § 85, restricted the use of the privilege only for correspondence on "official business," to be interpreted by the Post Office Department, which would issue advisory opinions on whether a contemplated mailing could be franked. By 1971, the Post Office Department relinquished any responsibility to give advisory opinions. This led to a number of lawsuits by disgruntled candidates who ran against incumbent Members who used their franking privileges in mass mailings to constituents. Abuses became more flagrant, and the Franking Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93–191, 39 U.S.C. § 3210, was enacted to limit "official business" to "cover all matters which directly or indirectly pertain to the legislative process...." The Act also laid out a noninclusive list of what constitutes official business, and established two special commissions, the House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards and the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct of the Senate, to provide advisory opinions as to whether certain business is official or not.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/preamble

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Post Office is sanctioned in the U.S. Constitution, so would shutting it down require an amendment?

Yes...

Apparently, I was incorrect...according to CATO:

If my inbox is any indication, a lot of Americans apparently believe that an amendment to the Constitution would be necessary to privatize the U.S. Postal Service. That is simply not true.

Article 1, Section 8 says that [The Congress shall have the power] to establish Post Offices and Post Roads. It does not say that the federal government shall have the exclusive power to deliver mail. Nor does it require that the mail be delivered by an agent of the federal government to every home in the country, six days a week.

In a 1996 Cato book, “The Last Monopoly,” James I. Campbell writes the following in a chapter on the history of postal monopoly law:

The U.S. Constitution, in 1789, authorized Congress to establish “Post Offices and post Roads” but, unlike the Articles of Confederation, did not explicitly establish an exclusive monopoly. The first substantive postal law, enacted in 1792, listed post roads to be established, reflecting the traditional concept of postal service as a long-distance transport. It authorized the Postmaster General to enter into contracts for the carriage of “letters, newspapers, and packets” but limited the postal monopoly to “letter or letters, packet or packets, other than newspapers.”

According to Campbell, the Post Office “first began delivery of mail to a small portion of the U.S. population” in 1863:

Until the Postal Act of 1863, the Post Office remained essentially a contracting office for intercity transportation services. In fiscal 1862, costs of intercity and foreign transportation constituted 63 percent of all expenses.

Before 1863, intercity letters were either held at the destination post office for collection or delivered by a “letter carrier” who acted as independent contractor and charged the addressee two cents, one of which went to the Post Office.

Then there’s the issue of intracity mail delivery:

A person could drop letters at a post for delivery by a letter carrier within the same city, but that was a secondary service as far as the Post Office was concerned; even after the 1863 act, such “drop letters” were considered “not transmitted in the mails of the United States.”

Delivery of local, intracity letters was pioneered by private companies such as Boyd’s Despatch in New York City and Blood’s Despatch in Philadelphia. One authority counted 147 private local postal companies. The “locals” introduced adhesive postage stamps at least as early as 1841. The Post Office did not introduce stamps until 1847 and did not require their use until 1851. Efforts by the Post Office to suppress the locals failed when, in 1860, a federal court ruled that the postal monopoly pertained only to the transportation of letters over “post roads” between post offices and did not prohibit the delivery of letters within a single postal district.

The Postal Code of 1872 extended the postal monopoly to the delivery of local letters.

See more at: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/us-postal-service-and-constitution#sthash.znLCj4tp.dpuf

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/us-postal-service-and-constitution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word "shall" generally means "must."

Very well, if you want to believe the phrase means "Congress must have the power to . . . establish Post Offices and post Roads," we may still, constitutionally, be left without post offices, for nothing in the document requires Congress to exercise that power.

If you recall, the Contsitution also says, "Congress shall have power to ... declare War." I don't suppose you think that means Congress must now and each day henceforth declare war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some history:

1. The Articles of Confederation, Article IX, expressly granted the central government a monopoly over interstate mail.

"The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of ... establishing or regulating post offices from one State to another, throughout all the United States, and exacting such postage on the papers passing through the same as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said office."

The language in the Constitution is a distinct step back from this.

2. Congress had to pass a law in the nineteenth century to squelch the Pony Express. They wouldn't have had to if the Constitution had already given the feds a monopoly. This is apparently what Selene's Cato quote in #12 is talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word "shall" generally means "must."

Very well, if you want to believe the phrase means "Congress must have the power to . . . establish Post Offices and post Roads," we may still, constitutionally, be left without post offices, for nothing in the document requires Congress to exercise that power.

If you recall, the Contsitution also says, "Congress shall have power to ... declare War." I don't suppose you think that means Congress must now and each day henceforth declare war.

Incorrect.

Might have been why I used the word "generally."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In legalese, "shall" is confined to the meaning "has a duty to" and is used to impose a duty on a capable actor.* Based on that definition, then the Constitution does, indeed, require Congress to exercise that power. Whether or not Congress qualifies as a capable actor, however, is questionable.

*Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, 940-941 (2d ed., Oxford U. Press 1995)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In legalese, "shall" is confined to the meaning "has a duty to" and is used to impose a duty on a capable actor.* Based on that definition, then the Constitution does, indeed, require Congress to exercise that power. Whether or not Congress qualifies as a capable actor, however, is questionable.

Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, 940-941 (2d ed., Oxford U. Press 1995)

That agrees with Black's Law Dictionary and the second paragraph of their definition adds that:

As used in statutes and similar instruments, this word is generally imperative or mandatory; but it may be construed as merely permissive or directory, (as equivalent to “may,”) to carry out the legislative intention and In cases where no right or benefit to any one depends on its being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense. Also, as against the government, “shall” is to be construed as “may,” unless a contrary intention is manifest. See Wheeler v. Chicago, 24 111. 105, 76 Am. Dec. 736; People v. Chicago Sanitary Dist., 184 111. 597, 56 N. E. 9.”.:;: Madison v. Daley (C. C.) 58 Fed. 753; Cairo & F. R. Co. v. Ilecht, 95 U. S. 170, 24 L. Ed. 423. SHAM PLEA. See PLEA. SHARE 1082 SHERIFF

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word "shall" generally means "must."

Very well, if you want to believe the phrase means "Congress must have the power to . . . establish Post Offices and post Roads," we may still, constitutionally, be left without post offices, for nothing in the document requires Congress to exercise that power.

If you recall, the Contsitution also says, "Congress shall have power to ... declare War." I don't suppose you think that means Congress must now and each day henceforth declare war.

Incorrect.

Might have been why I used the word "generally."

Whether "shall" generally means "must" 51% or 100% of the time, the vital point is that Congress is only granted the power to establish post offices. ("The Congress shall have Power To")

It is not required by the Constitution to exercise that power, any more than it is required to declare war whenever it is in session.

Now if Article I, Section 8 really means Congress has no choice but to set up a postal system, why is there currently no declaration of war and no grants of Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which Congress under Section 8 is also empowered (but not required) to issue?

And if "The Congress shall have Power To" actually means "Congress has no choice but to," why hasn't Congress paid the debts of the United States as stated in the first paragraph of Section 8?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Deanna mentioned in post # 16 supra:

"In legalese, "shall" is confined to the meaning "has a duty to" and is used to impose a duty on a capable actor.* Based on that definition, then the Constitution does, indeed, require Congress to exercise that power. Whether or not Congress qualifies as a capable actor, however, is questionable.

*Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, 940-941 (2d ed., Oxford U. Press 1995)

Secondly, Congress has been acting extra Constitutionally by not exercising it's direct responsibility to, as you noted, pay "...the debts of the United States as state in the first paragraph of Section 8."

The interesting issue is why Congress is not suspended for not carrying out it's delegated direction under Article 1 powers. Moreover, Congress should receive no pay, nor benefits until they act affirmatively on their responsibilities.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Deanna mentioned in post # 16 supra:

"In legalese, "shall" is confined to the meaning "has a duty to" and is used to impose a duty on a capable actor.* Based on that definition, then the Constitution does, indeed, require Congress to exercise that power. Whether or not Congress qualifies as a capable actor, however, is questionable.

*Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, 940-941 (2d ed., Oxford U. Press 1995)

Secondly, Congress has been acting extra Constitutionally by not exercising it's direct responsibility to, as you noted, pay "...the debts of the United States as state in the first paragraph of Section 8."

The interesting issue is why Congress is not suspended for not carrying out it's delegated direction under Article 1 powers. Moreover, Congress should receive no pay, nor benefits until they act affirmatively on their responsibilities.

A...

Very well then, the words, "Congress shall have the power to . . . establish Post Offices and post Roads," means, "Congress has a duty to have the power to . . . establish Post Offices and post Roads."

It still doesn't say Congress must exercise that power. If it actually meant "must exercise that power" then Congress could never be in session without declaring war, issuing letters of marque and paying U.S. government debt--things it used to do only occasionally and at present never does.

Notice the difference in language between "shall" and "shall have the power to."

Article II Section 3 states with regard to the President:

"He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

In this case there is no option not to give a State of the Union address "from time to time."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now