On June 04, 1963, JFK signed EO 11110. Five months later, on Nov. 22, 1963 he was assassinated.
The Constitution Article 1, Section 8 clause five, speaking on the exclusive powers of congress says:
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
The coinage act of 1792 says:
SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That there shall be from time to time struck and coined at the said mint, coins of gold, silver, and copper, of the following denominations, values and descriptions, ... Dollars or the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver
The U.S. dollar was defined to be 371.25 grains of silver.
Is the U.S. dollar still defined that way? I'm not sure. Its a little confusing.
in 1900 the Gold Standard Act defined gold as 23.22 grains of gold, taking us off a bimetal standard (which can never work because of conflicting supply/demand curves).
In 2019 bill H.R. 2558 attempts to reintroduce a Gold Standard (it has not been voted on). It says:
To define the dollar as a fixed weight of gold.
This is confusing because I think the dollar is still defined as gold (or maybe silver or maybe both). Would that make this bill automatically fail? I'm not sure. It could redefine its value, but it doesn't say that. I think the problem with this bill is, it misses the fact that we haven't used a U.S. dollar as legal tender in circulation for a very long time. We have instead used Federal Reserve notes (FRN). The U.S. Dollar has never been redefined as an FRN but remains either gold, silver, or both.
Legal Tender is defined by the Coinage Act of 1965 Section 31 U.S.C. 5103 as:
"United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
It goes on to say:
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
This means that no one has to accept the debt IOUs we mistakenly call the U.S. Dollar (when what we really mean is FRN) as payment. BUT, you can use it for debts, public charges, taxes, and dues and it must be accepted as legal tender (tender meaning "an offer", legal meaning "by declaration of law").
I am not sure how the FRN bypasses Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5. It may be that FRNs are not "money" by definition, but legal tender. It may be that because the money is technically printed by the US Department of the Treasury its still "under control" of the Congress. Whatever the loophole is, FRN's are not necessarily lawful tender (as defined by the constitution) but are legal tender (as defined by subsequent laws on the books that may not be constitutional).
So FRN's aren't mandatory for the four things listed above, but since there is no other real option (unless you want to bring in all the pennies you have saved up in your lifetime) you pretty much have to use FRN's for several of the things we are most used to paying, notably loan debt and taxes, both of which are strictly banking endeavors (taxes go to the Fed, not the Treasury).
Of course if there were a legitimate option besides FRNs to pay taxes and debts (bank loans), this would bypass the Federal Reserves economic monopoly. Anything but an FRN would be really bad for the Fed if used widespread as they would lose their legal monopoly and thus would lose all their power unless they could compete with the new currency (which would really fuck them up).
Enter JFK and EO 11110.
EO 11110 modified EO 10289 (Truman 1951) which said (in Paragraph 1)
- The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby designated and empowered to perform the following-described functions of the President without the approval, ratification, or other action of the President:
This power of the SoT was added to by EO 11110 as follows.
(a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j): "(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption,"
So the SoT was given power to issue silver certificates (print money) separate from the power of the President (and more importantly, from the power of the Fed). And fractional reserve lending by the Treasury was also not allowed:
to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates
Fractional Reserve Banking was not allowed because it is literally the root of all of the worlds current evils.
From EO 10289 Paragraph 2 reads:
- The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby designated and empowered to perform without the approval, ratification, or other action of the President the following functions which have heretofore, under the respective provisions of law cited, required the approval of the President in connection with their performance by the Secretary of the Treasury:
So the SoT had the following powers:
(b) The authority vested in the Secretary of the Treasury by section 9 of the act of June 19, 1934, c. 674, 48 Stat. 1181 (31 U.S.C. 448a), to issue rules and regulations necessary or proper to carry out the purposes of the said act or of any order issued thereunder.
(c) The authority vested in the Secretary of the Treasury by section 1805 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.D. 1805) to issue rules and regulations (with respect to silver bullion) necessary or proper to carry out the purposes of the said section.
EO 11110 revoked these powers:
(b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.
This took away the ability of the SoT to overwrite the Presidents EO to give the power to print money to the SoT.
The 1951 Truman EO basically gave all rights to the SoT to do whatever the fuck they wanted without any oversight. Which was great, because the SoT's primary job was as a globalist, being the U.S. Governor of the IMF, which is to say, they were working for the Fed.
This is why almost every SoT has been a banker.
The JFK EO gave the power back to the Treasury to print real money, and took away from the Treasury the power to not have that power.
It basically opened the door to destroy the Fed. JFK was killed not long after, and that door was quickly closed.
The C_A may have pulled the trigger, but the Fed killed JFK. Not that I think many here are surprised by that, but I thought it should be made clear where that idea stems from.
On June 04, 1963, JFK signed EO 11110. Five months later, on Nov. 22, 1963 he was assassinated.
The Constitution Article 1, Section 8 clause five, speaking on the exclusive powers of congress says:
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
The coinage act of 1792 says:
SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That there shall be from time to time struck and coined at the said mint, coins of gold, silver, and copper, of the following denominations, values and descriptions, ... Dollars or the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver
The U.S. dollar was defined to be 371.25 grains of silver.
Is the U.S. dollar still defined that way? I'm not sure. Its a little confusing.
in 1900 the Gold Standard Act defined gold as 23.22 grains of gold, taking us off a bimetal standard (which can never work because of conflicting supply/demand curves).
In 2019 bill H.R. 2558 attempts to reintroduce a Gold Standard (it has not been voted on). It says:
To define the dollar as a fixed weight of gold.
This is confusing because I think the dollar is still defined as gold (or maybe silver or maybe both). Would that make this bill automatically fail? I'm not sure. It could redefine its value, but it doesn't say that. I think the problem with this bill is, it misses the fact that we haven't used a U.S. dollar as legal tender in circulation for a very long time. We have instead used Federal Reserve notes (FRN). The U.S. Dollar has never been redefined as an FRN but remains either gold, silver, or both.
Legal Tender is defined by the Coinage Act of 1965 Section 31 U.S.C. 5103 as:
"United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
It goes on to say:
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
This means that no one has to accept the debt IOUs we mistakenly call the U.S. Dollar (when what we really mean is FRN) as payment. BUT, you can use it for debts, public charges, taxes, and dues and it must be accepted as legal tender (tender meaning "an offer", legal meaning "by declaration of law").
I am not sure how the FRN bypasses Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5. It may be that FRNs are not "money" by definition, but legal tender. It may be that because the money is technically printed by the US Department of the Treasury its still "under control" of the Congress. Whatever the loophole is, FRN's are not necessarily lawful tender (as defined by the constitution) but are legal tender (as defined by subsequent laws on the books that may not be constitutional).
So FRN's aren't mandatory for the four things listed above, but since there is no other real option (unless you want to bring in all the pennies you have saved up in your lifetime) you pretty much have to use FRN's for several of the things we are most used to paying, notably loan debt and taxes, both of which are strictly banking endeavors (taxes go to the Fed, not the Treasury).
Of course if there were a legitimate option besides FRNs to pay taxes and debts (bank loans), this would bypass the Federal Reserves economic monopoly. Anything but an FRN would be really bad for the Fed if used widespread as they would lose their legal monopoly and thus would lose all their power unless they could compete with the new currency (which would really fuck them up).
Enter JFK and EO 11110.
EO 11110 modified EO 10289 (Truman 1951) which said (in Paragraph 1)
- The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby designated and empowered to perform the following-described functions of the President without the approval, ratification, or other action of the President:
This power of the SoT was added to by EO 11110 as follows.
(a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j): "(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption,"
So the SoT was given power to issue silver certificates (print money) separate from the power of the President (and more importantly, from the power of the Fed). And fractional reserve lending by the Treasury was also not allowed:
to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates
Fractional Reserve Banking was not allowed because it is literally the root of all of the worlds current evils.
From EO 10289 Paragraph 2 reads:
- The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby designated and empowered to perform without the approval, ratification, or other action of the President the following functions which have heretofore, under the respective provisions of law cited, required the approval of the President in connection with their performance by the Secretary of the Treasury:
So the SoT had the following powers:
(b) The authority vested in the Secretary of the Treasury by section 9 of the act of June 19, 1934, c. 674, 48 Stat. 1181 (31 U.S.C. 448a), to issue rules and regulations necessary or proper to carry out the purposes of the said act or of any order issued thereunder.
(c) The authority vested in the Secretary of the Treasury by section 1805 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.D. 1805) to issue rules and regulations (with respect to silver bullion) necessary or proper to carry out the purposes of the said section.
EO 11110 revoked these powers:
(b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.
This took away the ability of the SoT to overwrite the Presidents EO to give the power to print money to the SoT.
The first EO basically gave all rights to the SoT to do whatever the fuck they wanted without any oversight. Which was great, because the SoT's primary job was as a globalist, being the U.S. Governor of the IMF, which is to say, they were working for the Fed.
This is why almost every SoT has been a banker.
The JFK EO gave the power back to the Treasury to print real money, and took away from the Treasury the power to not have that power.
It basically opened the door to destroy the Fed. JFK was killed not long after, and that door was quickly closed.
The C_A may have pulled the trigger, but the Fed killed JFK. Not that I think many here are surprised by that, but I thought it should be made clear where that idea stems from.