My main point was that The Fed is not illegal, because it exists within the body of Federal legislation, and that's what makes it legal. Get it? You or I do not have the power to declare what is legal or not legal. That power belongs to the US Supreme Court. Since The Fed has been created by an Act of Congress, is governed by Federal Law and the US Supreme Court has not ruled the Fed illegal, calling it 'illegal' is a false statement.
I also said that I agree with the opinion that The Fed places too much power over the economy in the hands of too few people and that it distributes the wealth of the country unfairly. However, I'm not a Congressman or a Supreme Court Justice, so what I think has no direct bearing on the US legal system.
Rick Reuben wrote:If Congress decided to sell the Department of Justice to a private corporation, would you need the Supreme Court to tell you that was a bad idea?
First of all, that's not the question you asked me. If you bothered to read my reply you would have seen that indeed I did answer that question in my last post.
However, to answer the question you just asked:
Rick Reuben wrote:If Congress decided to sell the Department of Justice to a private corporation, would you need the Supreme Court to tell you that was a bad idea?
No I wouldn't. I know that would be a bad idea from other examples I have seen of privatization of critical Federal agencies.
Whether or not it would be illegal, however, is not up to me to decide, because I don't write the laws or rule on them. Those are the jobs of the Congress and the Supreme Court, respectively. It's very simple, really.
Anyway, that sounds like the kind of policy change that your friend Ron Paul would support, and that's one of the reasons why I don't support the likes of Ron Paul or Lyndon LaRouche.
I'm through belaboring this really simple point with you.
You were wrong in calling the Fed illegal, and now you know why.