Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act Hits Congress 2


Source: http://freedomoutpost.com

This piece of legislation was not the only one to be introduced. House Resolution 77, the Free Competition in Currency Act of 2013, was also introduced by Rep. Broun. This legislation seeks “to repeal the legal tender laws, to prohibit taxation on certain coins and bullion, and to repeal superfluous sections related to coinage.”On January 3, 2013 Congressman Paul Broun, Jr. (R-GA) introduced HR 73, The Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act. The thrust of the legislation is to “abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks, to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and for other purposes.” It looks like Ron Paul’s consistent cries for dealing with the Federal Reserve have not fallen on deaf ears, nor has the idea dissipated from elected representatives since he left office.

This piece of legislation was not the only one to be introduced. House Resolution 77, the Free Competition in Currency Act of 2013, was also introduced by Rep. Broun. This legislation seeks “to repeal the legal tender laws, to prohibit taxation on certain coins and bullion, and to repeal superfluous sections related to coinage.”

But Broun wasn’t about to stop there. He also introduced two other pieces of legislation: HR 24, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2013, which is put forth “To require a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States,” and HR 33, the Audit the Fed Act of 2013, which purpose is “To amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported.”

All of these pieces of legislation are very similar to those proposed by former Congressman Ron Paul.

The Federal Reserve is a huge problem from America and this is not some recent news. It has been going on since the early 20th century.

Felix Bronstein wrote a piece in which he cited a piece on proposals to help cut the Federal budget written for The Heritage Foundation in 1986 by Warren T. Brooks. Bronstein writes,

Brookes began by stating that “conservatives need to understand that without basic monetary reform there is no way to balance the U.S. budget, with or without tax increases and budget cuts, and even with the most optimistic GNP growth projections.” He then offered a 3 part solution:

(1) “the nation must return as quickly as possible to gold-based money and debt” (Heritage’s Policy Review published another piece endorsing a return to the gold standard as a key component of balancing the budget, in the next issue, by the late Congressman, HUD Secretary and Vice Presidential candidate — Jack Kemp, My Plan To Balance The Budget, Spring 1986)

(2) we should allow “free exchange of gold and silver, both public and private, setting up a parallel monetary system on a free market basis, allowing the public to choose,” (Heritage’s Policy Review published another piece endorsing the idea of Hayekian currency competition or privatization, also in the next issue — Richard W. Rahn, Time To Privatize Money?, Spring 1986) and

(3) “the Federal Reserve would be phased back to its original role as a bank-owned clearing house, thus eliminating its huge and costly presence in the money markets where its open market operations now run as high as $1 trillion a year.

With all of the talk about the “fiscal cliff” and raising the debt ceiling yet again, it is clear that the problems of the Federal budget and debt, and especially the cost of servicing the Federal debt, have certainly not gotten any better since Warren Brookes’s [sic] solutions were published (and ignored) in 1986.

So far we have seen that Washington is not serious about the fiscal cliff or the debt ceiling. So now, we’ll see how serious they are about dealing with the Federal Reserve. So far, each of the bills have been referred to committee. It would behoove us to inform our representatives about these pieces of legislation and to push them through committee for a vote on the House floor.

Hat tip: American Vision News

  • Pingback: Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act Hits Congress | Libertarian Party of Tennessee()

  • cadence3823

    Share this far and wide.

    Repeal the 16th & 17th Amendments

    Repealing the 17th amendment to the constitution will reinstate the authority of the States allowing the State governments to VETO inappropriate Federal actions. Without restoring VETO authority to the State governments the states will not have the power to stop the unbridled Federal abuses.

    Failure to control the Federal government will lead to national insolvency. This insolvency will have unparalleled consequences affecting life, freedom and the ability of the people to pursue happiness. It is imperative that the Federal government be bridled by the people.

    Why was the 16th and 17th Amendments shoved on the people in 1913?

    Here is the lesson on the 17th Amendment and why we need to share it across the internet and e-mail to everyone.

    1925 Supreme Court Changes to the United States ConstitutionIn 1913 changes to the United States Constitution were made by the enactment of the 16th and 17th amendments. The 1925 Supreme Court in the Butler Case decision used the newly enacted amendments to justify changes to the United States Constitution.

    The Founding Fathers constitution had checks and balances placed within the governing document that established to limit the power and authority of the Federal government over the lives of the people. The Founders were fearful that an all powerful Federal government would not be responsive to the people’s rights.

    Historically prior to the U. S. Constitution governmental bodies were not responsive to the rights and freedom of its citizenry. It was not until the enactment of the U. S. Constitution in 1789 that the rights and freedom of people were to be protected. The Founding Fathers were aware of the adage that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The checks and balances were established in the original Founding Fathers Constitution so that the Federal governments appetite for power could be controlled.

    Enactment of the 16th and 17th amendments to the constitution negated the checks and balances that were in the original constitution. The 16th amendment allowed the Federal government to directly tax each State’s citizens. The 17th amendment removed the United States Senators as “sentinels” to protect the rights of their state. The Senators no longer had to report back to their State do determine what actions needed to be taken in Washington D. C.

    U. S. Constitution Turned Upside Down

    These amendment modifications allowed the Supreme Court to drastically make changes to the United States Constitution in their Butler Case decision that reversed the documents purpose. This one decision has turned the constitution upside down. Whereas the constitution was originally written to protect the rights and freedom of the people, the newly revised constitution, after the Supreme Court decision gave the Federal government unlimited control and authority.

    The Founding Fathers constitution limited the powers of the Federal government. The new constitutional Supreme Court interpretation has reversed the the authority positions of power from the people to the Federal government. The Federal government is now free unbridled and unrestrained to do whatever. The people now have limited power to control their Federal government.

    Out-of-Control Federal Government

    The States which had originally given the Federal government its powers and authority now found themselves subrogated under the control of an all-powerful Federal government. In less than a hundred years from this historic 1925 Supreme Court decision the freedom of the people has been greatly curtailed accompanied by a Federal government that has established an unprecedented debt obligation on the people. The government’s appetite for power must be controlled or America will collapse.

    The system without the checks and balances does not provide sufficient motivations for members of congress to curtail the runaway actions of the Federal government. It is irrelevant which political party the congressional members represent as the system established by the current constitution does not provide motivation to protect the rights and freedom of the people. The current governmental system rewards congressional members who recklessly increase benefits for their individual electorate in order to get re-elected.

    The U. S. Senators no longer protect the rights of their State. The people’s rights and freedom are not being protected by any of the governmental branches. Governmental control must be returned back to the people.

    Healing America

    Just as changes to the United States Constitution had unknown consequences the process of healing America must be accomplished with great care and deliberation. The checks and balances established in the original Founding Fathers Constitution must be restored so that the ills facing America can be tackled without creating other problems.

    Inappropriate or untimely modifications to the constitution may produce consequences that produce results that further the loss of rights and freedom of the people. It is so important to re-establish the United States Senators as “sentinels” for the States and the people prior to addressing other actions to correct problems.

    By restoring the checks and balances of the original Founding Fathers constitution America can begin the healing process. America can return to its position of greatness. A free American people allowed to be productive will lead the rest of the world back into freedom and prosperity.

    Truly this is a worthy cause but please answer this question for me is it a Constitutional Government by the people, or is the United State Corporation? This makes a huge difference of the change, states can veto all they want but if we have a federal Government not bound by the people why would they adhere to the constitution in legal terms for which it is not bound, what results will this bring exactly?

    Reread the Declaration Of Independence and what are the instructions when a Government has become corrupt? These are the instructions by our founders by the way and this is an applicable document. I wonder if deciding independence, living independent and doing independent actions might not be the veto power we really need to make such correction and then correct our constitution to reflect these valuable lessons learned?