Should Glass-Steagall be Restored?
Or is it only a bandaid applied to a slashed artery?
by Dean Hazel
To the question, "Should the GSA (Glass-Steagall Act) be restored?" I must say, I do not see anything more than folly in trying to use a bandage to repair a gushing fractured dam. Inflation is the culprit driving market prices up and down in a continual upward spiral while the value of everything else spirals down in turn in the final bust.
The inflation is manufactured by banks and so-called lending institutions that while pretending to loan money, only loan credit by employing fictions to cover usury in kiting checks for loans against unpaid security notes received for those loans. Sound money as it is declared by the meaning of the very word "DOLLAR" as it is used in the US Constitution is what is needed. Not more things to waste time on as our lives, homes, businesses and property waste away because of the continual inflation spawned of the monetary fraud of our own government consorting with private banks to injure our economy and industry for their private profits!
The sole duty of only the Congress in this, is to state the dollar's value, unless the word dollar as used in the federal constitution is controlling the value in the absence of the Congress to act in establishing its value as mandated by the constitution. Given our Michigan State Supreme Court's ruling in Pfeiffer v. Board of Education of Detroit (1898), 118 Mich. 560, at p. 564, 77 N.W. 250, at p. 251, 42 L.R.A. 536 as quoted here by the Michigan Court of Appeals in 1966:
"In Pfeiffer v. Board of Education of Detroit (1898), 118 Mich. 560, at p. 564, 77 N.W. 250, at p. 251, 42 L.R.A. 536, the Supreme Court said with respect to constitutional interpretation:
“In determining this question, we should endeavor to place ourselves in the position of the framers of the constitution, and ascertain what was meant at the time; for, if we are successful in doing this, we have solved the question of its meaning for all time. "It could not mean one thing at the time of its adoption, and another thing today, when public sentiments have undergone a change." (Citing authorities.) It is therefore essential that we determine the intent of this provision by reference to the state of the law or custom previously existing, and by the contemporaneous construction, rather than attempt to test its meaning by the so-called advanced or liberal [SPLC & ACLU] views obtaining among a large [or minority] class of the community at the present day.”
This test was adopted by a unanimous court in Holland v. Clerk of Garden City (1941), 299 Mich. 465, 470, 300 N.W. 777; and by a majority of the participating justices of the court in Burdick v. Secretary of State (1964), 373 Mich. 578, 584, 130 N.W.2d 380.
“Walber v. Piggins”; (1966) 2 Mich. App. 145, at 148,149; 138 N.W.2d 772, at 774. [Emphasis and bracketed notes mine]
The Congress is only constitutionally authorized to establish the value of the dollar to be anything other than what it was when the Constitution of the United States of America was written. If they repeal their only statute declaring the dollar to have a value that is different than what it had been when it was originally used in the federal constitution, then wouldn't the federal constitution's meaning be controlling? When it is their mandated duty, and only their duty to do so if it is to have a different value than what it had when the federal constitution was written and used the word dollar to establish a value within its text. Was that use, the common everyday meaning of the time? I think so given the history and even the United State Coinage Acts at that time. Please see the book, Pieces of Eight by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr..
The word dollar at the time of the writing of the federal constitution, within the everyday language used by the citizens, meant the standard equivalent of the silver Spanish milled doubloon in weight and measure if not the same coin. Silver and only silver was then the money of the United States of America known as the dollar via the very words of the United States Constitution.[1] Thus by law, "It could not mean one thing at the time of its adoption, and another thing today, when public sentiments have undergone a change." The law is the law, or is it, and what is the supreme law anyhow? Who would dare to commit any treason against the people?[2]
Need I remind you that the Congress is a millionaire's club as wealth is now measured in whatever passes for money! What do they care as their bread is well buttered as they benefit from what we all suffer. Sound money is a security by which the masses can stabilize their lives and retain their property. Though it is more of a bane than boon to the speculators, who profit by the hardship caused by a fluctuating medium of exchange that can be speculated on in driving market prices through the roof in a game they enjoy as the banks rake in the real jack (slang money), i.e., real property, real wealth, real estate.
Sincerely yours,
Dean S. Hazel
PS: You should ask a local broker to address your concerns. The pro-repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act is addressed at the following website at the link given below. The site is currently owned by an advertising company, "ValueClick" which I believe is traded on NASDAQ.
PS: Additional note to the editor from Mr. Hazel: Well Brian, I hope it occurs to you by reading this, that because the proper judgment of petit treason was anything that could be considered a crime against the citizens before the making of anyother statutes, that is still what it is today, insomuch as English statutes only serve to expand the common law when they do not repeal it as a whole. Please correct me if I be wrong.
[1] Prior to 1877, the dollar value of gold coins was given as a silly and dangerous arbitrary value in the dollars which were silver, originally at the exchange rate of 16 to one. The standardized gold coins should be left to trade at market value against the standardized dollars (of silver).
[2] HALE'S HISTORY of the PLEAS OF THE CROWN, VOL. I. (1800), @ page 220 That altho this be a new law, yet inafmuch as neither at common law, nor after the ftatute of 25 E. 3. the treafons or offenfes concerning money had any greater judgment than fuch as is given in cafe of petit treafon, namely for the man to he drawn and hanged, the woman to be burnt, no higher or other judgment is to be given upon the ftatutes of the 5th or 18th Eliz. and hence it is, that in the fatute of 25 E. 3. tho it rank counterfeiting money among high treafons, yet it alters not the judgment that was at common law; nay tho it be most certain, that the fatute of 25 E.3. as to fome points of bringing in foreign money be introductive of a new law, yet inafmuch as it concerns money, wherein the higheft: judgment at the time of 25 E. 3. was only that of petit treafon, it doth not inhance the judgment higher; and accordingly it was re- [221] folved upon great advice and confideration of precedents Car. 2. Bance Regis in the cafe (i) for clipping Englifh coin.
[223] After the statute of 25 E. 3. the punishment hath been constantly to be drawn and hanged, because that was the proper judgment of it, before the making of the statute.
### 2011 May 30
Posted by The Coffee Coaster™ copyright Infowars/Watson Dean Hazel | Glass Steagall Act | Economic Security | Treason | Money
