Comments on: A banking strategy that pleases no one Fri, 30 May 2014 19:54:25 +0000 hourly 1 By: Gordon2352 Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:50:29 +0000 I would like to clarify a point in my earlier comments.

I am NOT an advocate of States Rights’ as a solution.

I believe we need a strong federal government, but one that is answerable to the American people, which our present government is not.

One of the main problems with our Constitution is that our Founding Fathers were afraid the country would devolve into a democracy, as much of Europe was doing at the time.

As a result, they built in safeguards (e.g. the Electoral College) to ensure that the American people never had the power to vote. What we have for national elections is a sham. The popular vote doesn’t count at all.

This country is not a Democracy, but a Plutarchy (i.e. Plutocracy plus an Oligarchy), or basically rule by a small wealthy class. It has always been a Plutarchy, right from the beginning in 1776. The US Constitution was designed to be that way, and it still is today.

It was also designed to have a small federal government and limited powers for the supreme court.

As I said above, the deterioration began in 1803 in the case of Marbury v. Madison, where the US Supreme Court unlawfully extended its limited powers under the Constitution by means of giving itself the powers of “judicial review” over the intent and meaning of the written Constitution

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law and in the history of law worldwide.

It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution.

It was also the first time in Western history a court invalidated a law by declaring it “unconstitutional”.[1][2]

The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.

Judicial review in the United States refers to the power of a court to review the constitutionality of a statute or treaty, or to review an administrative regulation for consistency with either a statute, a treaty, or the Constitution itself.

The United States Constitution does not explicitly establish the power of judicial review. Rather, the power of judicial review has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.[1]

Notice the last two sentences in the above quote.

The power of judicial review of the US Constitution was “inferred” by the Supreme Court. The power of judicial review was discussed by our Founding Fathers, but never included in the Constitution itself, but the Supreme Court only 27 years later usurped the power on its own, thus establishing itself as an authority above the written US Constitution.

In effect, the Supreme Court instantly became more powerful than the US Constitution. What that also means is that every single law ruled on by the US Supreme Court since 1803 is invalid, since it has no actual power to interpret the US Constitution.

I doubt anyone at the time could see what would happen as a result of this action by the Supreme Court, but over time it permitted the unnatural growth in the size and scope of the Federal Government (especially as the nation expanded westward, and always at the expense of the individual states who continued to lose power in Supreme Court rulings).

As I said, the federal government, by declaring war on the southern states who wished to withdraw from the union in 1861, exceeded its legal authority under the US Constitution, since it has no such powers to do so, and has ruled unlawfully since.

A major reason why the federal government was able to grow as it did was due to the “constitutional” rulings of the Supreme Court, which gave it legal status it did not otherwise have under the Constitution, so the Supreme Court was the “great enabler” of the growth of the federal government, which helped to cause the Civil War over States Rights’ that were being constantly eroded.

(Yes, slavery was a major issue, but the real underlying reason for the Civil War was to enable expansion of power of the Federal Government.)

It is the combination of the federal government and supreme court working together that has been largely responsible for the massive growth in the size and power of the federal government throughout this country’s history.

The US Supreme Court — completely unanswerable to anyone in the government or the American people — far from being a check on the rising power of the federal government (i.e. the supposed “checks and balances” of our government) has acted mainly as the “power behind the throne”, being careful for the most part to maintain a low profile.

The truth is neither has the legal right — under the original intent of the US Constitution — to enact the laws they have enacted.

These are the facts of the situation as time and space permits.

Therefore, in order to address the problems we have in the federal government today, both the issue of the roles of the federal government and that of the supreme court MUST be addressed.

The present Constitution is not capable of addressing these issues.

This country is on the verge of disintegration once again, just as it was prior to the Civil War in 1861. Unless something is done we will have another terrible price to pay. I would prefer not to see that happen.

The American people NEED to understand the extent of the problem and how long it has persisted. This is very important to resolving the issues we face today. They must realize the only way to address it is to hold another constitutional convention — at which point we can create the government we want and need, one which will address the problems of the American people as they are now.

I don’t think that will happen, so by default we will again go through another period of crisis with little hope of surviving intact as a nation.

We have precious little time before it becomes too late again.

By: Gordon2352 Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:00:54 +0000 edgyinchina,

What we need is an honest government to enforce the laws, not one that is run by the bankers. The ONLY way to ensure that is to have a legitimate government in power, which we do not have at present.

If you notice, I called for another constitutional convention to set things right. We cannot undue 200 years of bad laws and illegal government.

We need to start over.

Simply tacking amendments onto a Constitution that was never meant to handle a government like this is pointless.

What we are seeing is the inevitable result of special interests taking control of the government and using it to further their own ends, not that of the American people.

People calling for fundamental change in our government need to understand what that means at this point in time.

Who knows? Maybe this time we could get it right.

By: mbcullen Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:13:53 +0000 This is the banking system I want:-
I want a state owned depository/transaction bank to be created. It will be the only bank in the nation authorised to recieve “at demand” deposits, it will be “not for profit”, it will not pay interest on deposits, it will not make or hold any investments, and will charge a monthly fee for actioning my transactions and holding my cash. All other banks will raise their capital from the bond or equity markets, and will be classified as investment banks, free to trade on their own account, leverage themselves as they see fit, thge government will never guarantee any investment bank and will be prohibited by constitioanal amendment from bailing out or making any investment in an investment bank,like wise the central bank will be prohibited from coming to the assistance of an investment bank, and when an investment bank becomes insolvent it will declare bankruptcy just like any other institution. If I want to buy bonds or shares in an investment bank, I will pay for it from my account with the State Transaction Bank, at my risk.

By: edgyinchina Mon, 27 Feb 2012 04:04:15 +0000 Ms McClean: What we need is a banking system that is HONEST… and THAT we do NOT have…

Investors can be and will always be ‘investors’, sometimes known as gamblers…. but Bankers should only be bankers. Keep our money safe, and provide capital for small businesses….

Gordon2352: What you want is a return to slavery, no voting rights for women, indentured servitude, and a return to an agrarian economy, which is what we had under ‘States Rights’….. Easy to tell where you live…

By: Gordon2352 Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:36:08 +0000 I agree implementing an updated version of Glass-Steagall would be a good start, but as the post by GMavros points out, the problem is the banks have bought our government, so no amount of legislation will do any good without a complete overhaul of our political system — one thing I want to point out that GMavros includes in his post, is that the Supreme Court is a MAJOR contributor to all of our problem, and has been since its ruling in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 in which it seized power for itself beyond its Constitutional limits.

The federal government unlawfully seized power for itself at the beginning of the Civil War.

The underlying problem is both the federal government and the supreme court have effectively overthrown the US Constitution, which was based on States’ Rights, thus enabling the disaster we see today.

Resolving this would take another constitutional convention. Simply continuing to “tweak” the original constitution amendments in this situation is pointless.

By: lhathaway Sun, 26 Feb 2012 15:08:56 +0000 Great article. Always enjoy your work Ms. McLean.

By: lhathaway Sun, 26 Feb 2012 15:08:53 +0000 Great article. Always enjoy your work Ms. McLean.

By: GMavros Sun, 26 Feb 2012 12:55:06 +0000 All great suggestions here, but you all missed one thing.
The banks have bought out our government. Business as usual. There is no hope unless we overhaul our political system, including the Supreme Court.
And while we are wasting all these resources on our banksters, China is leaving us behind.
Good luck, and God help us.

By: steve778936 Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:59:32 +0000 I fully agree with ‘breezinthru’. Re-introduce Glass-Steagall, then enforce the laws on the books. The SEC is suppose to regulate and investigate. Where there is evidence of malfeasance, the legal systems, both state and federal, should prosecute vigorously. Too often, white collar/financial crimes are somehow seen to be ‘not that bad’, so the government negotiates instead of indicts. It should also be noted that long sentences are no deterrent to the greed that drives the financial system. Bernie Madoff and the fate of similar people does not seem to have put the others off any more than the sentences for burglary deter would-be burglars. But if the majority of wrong-doers go to jail, we get them off the streets and out of our pockets.

By: JonParks Sun, 26 Feb 2012 03:49:56 +0000 What is a “well functioning banking system” might just as easily begin with what it is not..

but in keeping with Ms. McLEan’s positive statement – and what we want:
– one which is fair to seniors and savers, and to students and doesn’t penalize taxpayers;
– one which is transparent, with risks to all parties fully disclosed;
– one which holds bank officers and owners at personal risk for folly or malfeasance (just like the rest of us).

In terms of accountability, Glass-Steagal was itself a fix for the transgressions and dishonesty of the day – which gave way to the Great Depression. Go back a few years earlier and bank officers were held personally liable were they to “lose” depositor’s savings.

If anyone wants some good background reading, try –

“Fiat Money Inflation in France – How It Came, What It Brought, and How It Ended” by Andrew Dickson White.

– a short / easy read, and as relevant today as it was for France (or Post WWI Germany).