Why can't "We the People" sue the Federal Reserve for not backing their notes with Gold/Silver?

Question

This is strictly unconstitutional actions on the part of the Federal Reserve!

Berry...please go back and re-read what you wrote.

If it were the way you commented on, then why, oh why, is gold currently over $800 an oz? While the dollar is bottoming out?

Nomadd...it isn't very nice calling people (i.e. me) nitwits.

You guys haven't read the Constitution have you? It point blank states that ALL our currency is to be backed via GOLD/SILVER. Period.

THIS is what makes the Federal Reserve unconstitutional. The second that it dropped the gold standard, it lost all rights...let alone that it was only a very small handful of elite who voted in 1913 for the Federal Reserve to begin with.

I DO agree with you that we are nothing more than SLAVES to the elite when you take into consideration what the Federal Reserve does to people. A very small amount of people have 99% of the money, which can tell the people what and what not to do.

Answer 1

The bankers rule ... and the government will again turn it's head to anything that threatens the feds. So I highly don't think anyone will even touch that thought let alone try.
We don't have enough metal to replace the now flowing currency we are using. Your talking about the federal reserve system...The ones that are making this war possible, and making the wealthy wealthier.
Throughout history currency with no backing has failed, and were starting to see the dollar lose its value.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJxVIbQo3Hc
The "Liberty Dollar" has been seized, just goes to show that we have no chance with a currency that has a backing of gold or silver.

I just ran acrossed this:
Legal Defense Fund
Your right to use Gold & Silver is at risk
http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/legal/legalissues.htm

Answer 2

The Federal Reserve does not make the decision. The backing of the nations currency is a decision of Congress.

Here is a little history lesson that you may want to consider...

When the Fed was founded, Federal Reserve notes were by law back by gold. In fact, congress has set the standard that every note be backed somewhere between 30-35% gold. Each Fed branch maintained their own supply to back up their notes.

That worked fine until the Great Depression. People were hoarding money and not spending. The money supply needed to be increased. But many branches had maxed out on their gold and were restrained by law to increase the money supply for a desparate nation. This was also exasperated by other countries demanding gold in payment for trade (as was their right by law) which further depleted the gold supply.

FDR and congres then passed a law that banned private ownership of most gold. This allowed the money supply to increase.

But this was a temporary measure. As the nations economy grew, more money was needed but there was not enough gold and silver to backup it up. Congress had to keep reducing the gold backing. Eventually the U.S. went the way of every other industrialized country and abandon the gold standard altogether.

There is nothing uncontitutional about the Federal Reserve. It exists and gets it's power from acts of congress.

Answer 3

The answer to your question is you can sue the Federal Reserve. However, would you win? No. Would the court even allow you to present such a frivolous action? Maybe.

Is the Federal Reserve unconstitutional? No. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the U.S. Government has to back money with gold or silver. It does say that STATES cannot make anything other than gold or silver coin legal tender, but it does not put that limitation on the U.S. Government.

EDIT:
It appears that it is YOU that have not read the Constitution or at least if you did read it, you misinterpreted it.

The only place in the Constitution where gold or silver is mentioned is in Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 which states "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

Look closely at how that clause is written. It begins with "NO STATE shall..." and continues with a list of things a state cannot do. That is a limitation on what a STATE can do, NOT what the U.S. Government can do.

BTW, to all you gold standard proponents, have any of you studied history? Do you know that the Great Depression became a world-wide event? Do you know which countries had faster recoveries than others? Do you know why? Many of the countries that had faster economic recoveries ABANDONED the gold standard fairly early during the depression and were thereby more capable of adjusting their money supplies to lessen the economic downturn. Some countries that suffered the mildest effects of the downturn were not on the gold standard at the time or had only recently adopted it and then abandoned it. For example, China was on a silver, rather than gold standard, and the exchange rate between gold and silver insulated the Chinese economy from the worst of the world-wide depression. Spain, also was not on the gold standard because of internal instability that eventually led to the Spanish civil war and Japan which abandoned the gold standard about six months after adopting it. Those countries only suffered mild effects from the depression. Great Britain left the gold standard in September 1931 and many of its trading partners immediately followed Britain's lead. All of those countries reached the bottom of the depression in the third quarter of 1932, while in other countries that stayed on the gold standard, the depression dragged on. Some countries that remained on the gold standard but had ample reserves or were attracting gold inflows, for example, France. France had gold reserves and was still taking in gold well in excess of the size of its economy. France's gold reserves allowed it to maintain its economy and avoid a downturn until 1932. However, banking problems in France and liquidation of foreign gold stock offset the extra gold reserves causing severe deflation and decline in output. The depression in France did not reach bottom until 1935, much later than Britain or other countries that left the gold standard early.
The countries that were worst hit by the depression were those that stayed on the gold standard and had very low gold reserves along with banking systems weakened by World War I. Those were Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Romania.

Answer 4

There were cases in the 19th century about this. The Constitution prohibits the states from issuing their own money, but says nothing about the Federal government. Article 1 says that Congress can borrow money on credit, which necessarily involves paper money.

There were opinions written around the time the Constitution was written about how paper money shouldn't be allowed, but these opinions never made it into any official document, let alone the Constitution, and are therefore irrelevant.

Answer 5

Grey Shadow has presented an excellent explanation, altho brief.
If the US were still on the gold standard, Automobiles would cost about 15 to 20 % of todays prices, as would everything else. YOUR pay checks would also be 15 to 20% of what you are paid today.
HOWEVER, The US Dollar would not be in the basement, and the world would be in a FAR LOWER standard, than they are today.
I personnaly fear that the situation is such that the 'dollars value, without the backing of a tangable asset', is one, of several, concentrated and dedicated methods to facilitate a 'select few' to gain control of the worlds economy!!!!!
The elimination of the 'Gold Standard' under the LBJ Presidency, with the approval of the majority of both houses of congress, was one of the premire steps, for the one world government bunch to take control.

Answer 6

Why can't "We the people" sue the educational system for putting out nitwits who have no idea what the constitution is or what money is? How exactly do you think they're suppose to back up over 24 trillion dollars worth of money with less than a hundred billion dollars of gold?

Answer 7

Why would you want money backed by silver or gold?

That would be equivalent to saying there is a fixed amount of value the economy can ever be, and every transaction is a zero-sum one - what you get, I lose.

It has to be this way, because according to your idea, everyone could go down to the bank or wherever and get their gold, so there has to be enough gold all the time in case everyone does that at once.

Really bad idea when the amount is fixed and the population gets bigger :)

OTOH, with real money that is just a way to assign value and keep score of values of unrelated services and objects, then what I make you can also benefit from. I can create something that adds to the total value of the economy, and then that wealth can circulate as well.

But if you want a caveman style economy, well, at least explain to us why you think it is unconstitutional to have anything otherwise, and then when you have persuaded us of that, you can tell us in economic terms why it makes sense.

Answer 8

I don't see it that way. Nixon took the dollar off of the Bretton Woods system in 1971. I really don't see what legal case you could bring.

Answer 9

OK, you go first.