A taste of a petition re: Federal Reserve System being un constitutional

[galtgulch]

This issue is one of many crucial issues not being voiced by either major party candidate in this election. Here is an excerpt from a petition written by the founder of We The People Foundation. Do you think enough Americans can understand the importance of such issues? Are they capable of understanding that the country just might be in the situation it is in because the government, meaning their representatives have ignored the limits imposed explicitly in the Constitution? Can they grasp that the way back from the consequent disaster is to abide by the Constitution again?

>>>"50. Do you admit the Federal Reserve System has never been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court?

51. Do you admit there has never been a Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve System?

52. Do you admit that all elected officials are required to take an oath of office to support the Constitution?

53. Do you admit that to the extent that Congress enacts or facilitates avoidance of clear and explicit language of the Constitution that Congress is undermining the Constitution?

54. Do you admit certain elected and appointed officials, including the President, elected members of the Congress, and appointed members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System are guilty of aiding and abetting the undermining of clear and explicit language of my Constitution?

55. Do you admit this fits the common definition of tyranny?

56. Admit or deny that the Founders, in the 1774 Journals of the Continental Congress, expressly articulated the following:

“If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People,

they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility.”

1774, Journals of the Continental Congress,1:105-113 [emphasis added]

57. Admit or deny that one of the most precious Rights the People enjoy is a government strictly limited by written Laws and that where Law is found to be wanting, no man can be Free."<<<

For the complete text of this petition go to: www.givemeliberty.org where all seven petitions may be found.

[Chris Grieb]

Galt; This is an interesting idea. Who would have standing to bring it into the Federal system.

It is worth noting in the Heller case that only one of the plaintiffs had standing to challenge DC's terrible gun laws.

[galtgulch]

Galt; This is an interesting idea. Who would have standing to bring it into the Federal system.

It is worth noting in the Heller case that only one of the plaintiffs had standing to challenge DC's terrible gun laws.

Chris, I would suspect that those citizens who signed the petitions to be found at www.givemeliberty.org would have standing simply because they suffer as a consequence of violations of the limits imposed on the government by the Constitution. But that would make too much sense. Clearly it is the politically influenced justice department and the judges in the courts who decide as arcane an issue as "standing."

As an aside, you know the Russian Czar who was I believe the commander in chief of the White army at the time of the Bolchevik revolution misdirected his forces against the Red Army which led to the establishment of the Communist Party in Russia and seventy some odd years of tyranny with the loss of one hundred million lives murdered by their own government or gang in power.

If we knew for certain that we are heading in that direction, the establishment of a totalitarian state in America, perhaps we would become even more active in thwarting it here while we still have the freedoms necessary to enlighten our fellow citizens and the younger generation in order to restore a constitutional republic instead.

I think Objectivists should join and enlighten those involved in the Campaign For Liberty as I keep pointing out.

www.campaignforliberty.com

perhaps we already have a degree of tyranny and it might already be naive to think we can regain our freedom by means of petitioning the government as the political hack judges can simply stop us by declaring we have no "standing!"

galt

[Selene]

Galt; This is an interesting idea. Who would have standing to bring it into the Federal system.

It is worth noting in the Heller case that only one of the plaintiffs had standing to challenge DC's terrible gun laws.

Correct Chris:

I also would like to remind folks of the athiest in S.F. whose case regarding "...under God..." in the Pledge of Allegiance was dismissed because he lacked "standing" because of his status as the non-custodial parent of the daughter who was allegedly adversely affected by the phrase.

"Standing to sue" means that party has sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy. Furthermore, "standing" is a concept utilized to determine if a party is sufficiently affected so as to insure that a justiciable controversy is presented to the court. The requirement of "standing" is satisfied if it can be said that the plaintiff has a legally protectible and tangible interest at stake in the litigation. Standing is a jurisdictional issue which concerns power of federal courts to hear and decide cases and does not concern ultimate merits of substantive claims involved in the action. Finally, "standing" is a requirement that the plaintiffs have been injured or been threatened with injury by governmental action complained of, and focuses on the question of whether the litigant is the proper party to fight the lawsuit, not whether the issue itself is justiciable. Therefore, the essence of "standing" is that no person is entitled to assail the constitutionality of an ordinance or statute except as he himself is adversely affected by it.

So, you raise an excellent issue as to the Federal Reserve, but who has "standing"? On the surface it would appear that all citizens are affected, but can you argue that they have been substantially affected in a negative and unconstitutional manner?

Adam

[Chris Grieb]

Selene; Your explanation is correct. I suspect to have standing you would have to be a Governor of one of the Federal Reserve Banks.

[Selene]

Selene; Your explanation is correct. I suspect to have standing you would have to be a Governor of one of the Federal Reserve Banks.

Not sure if there are investors or stock holders, but they would also have standing.

[Chris Grieb]

I wonder if BB&T would have stock. I have the feeling John Allison would probably think a suit on the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve might not be the greatest idea but it worth a thought.