The claim that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional actually entails a broad family of arguments I can imagine four mostly distinct sometimes overlapping lines of argument although there may of course be others. First it is unconstitutional because it persues bad policy, that is unconstitutional and pursues bad policy treated with synonyms. When the Fed pursues good policy it is constitutional when it pursues bad policy is unconstitutional. Second the fed is unconstitutional because our government is one of the enumerated powers and nowhere does the constitution permit the modern practice monetary policy. This is the existential challenge: accepting this argument necessarily means that the abolition of the federal reserve through the government may be able to pursue monetary policy, but must do so squarely within the Madisonian tripartite framework of the legislative executive and judicial branches. This is not an existential Challenge per se but would require the Federal Reserve to lose its vaunted independence as that term is conventional used and be subject to the direct control of the executive branch subject to legislative design and for central baking fits within the constitutional framework and independent fed does too but specific features of the federal reserve violate specific constitutional principles or provisions of Supreme Court has constructed them in that sense the fed itself is not unconstitutional so much as, for example, the participation of private citizen on the Federal open market committee is constitutionally impermissible.
Posted on: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 07:23:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015