Building a Case: The People v Intraspecific Hierarchal Economics

The overall success of this case necessarily requires adjudication on several levels:

1. Through civil litigation: to sue the Federal Government—through the Tucker Act—for A) failure to provide Equal Protection to groups afflicted by the Financial Crisis of 2007-2008 (because government financial protection of one group necessitates Equal Protection of similarly afflicted groups), B) gross negligence in selling foreclosures off to Wall Street investors across the United States, directly accelerating inflation to the unequal pain and suffering of the lower and middle income laborer, and C) for dereliction of its duties in continuing to allow the Federal Reserve to manage its Congressional Money Powers, when during the time in question (2000-2023) it has utterly failed to maximize employment (9 million jobs lost during the crisis), control inflation (especially in rental prices, for which it is directly culpable), and maintain moderate interest rates (their random rate adjustments forced 10 million homeowners to walk away from their mortgages).
2. Through the challenge of various statutes, to A) establish the ‘non-constitutionality’ of the Federal Reserve and its private banking system, as well as the private money it creates, B) establish that only National Public Banks have the constitutional authority to collect federal taxes, as well as disseminate Congressional money toward the General Welfare, and C) to introduce concepts of Natural Law, as they pertain to Congressional Money Powers, liberty rights, taxation, Equal Protection and Spending Clauses, etc.
3. To submit a federal grant request to run a beta test on the effectiveness and efficiency of a public bank within underserved communities.

Constitution of the United States

The Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: “[The Congress shall have Power…] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof…”

Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: “[No State shall…] coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”

The Constitutional language is clear: Congress has the sole power to create the currency of the United States; no private or state entity was given this authority. Equally clear is that Congress can only tax and spend toward the nation’s General Welfare and Common Defense.

As First Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton was tasked to combine Constitutional law with the tenets of Natural Law; Hamilton and the ‘Federalists’ believed (correctly) that the loose confederation of colonies should unite and—as one interdependent body—politically communicate through a single ‘federal’ government, and economically communicate through the language of a single currency. Hamilton’s economic incorporation of Constitutional and Natural law became the First Bank of the United States, a Central Bank owned by the people, which collected the nation’s taxes into the U.S. treasury and dispersed them toward the General Welfare and Common Defense. The Supreme Court declared the Bank constitutional, solidifying this ruling again in 1819 with McCulloch v. Maryland. Meanwhile, the Court made it clear—in Craig v. Missouri (1830)—that state currency (“bills of credit”) was unconstitutional.

How this all changed has everything to do with one person: Andrew Jackson. He alone vetoed the National Public Bank out of existence, took all the money out of it—for which he was censured by Congress—then proceeded to pack the Supreme Court with his “states’ rights” judges, to decentralize federal government authority. He did this so he could drive back indigenous people and expand slavery into newly conquered territory without reprisal. His actions mirrored the earliest oppressors and served as the catalyst for the U.S. Civil War.

Even so, when his ‘Jacksonian Court’ waited for federalist John Marshall’s death in 1837 so they might overturn Craig v. Missouri—with its ruling in Briscoe v. Kentucky—the opinion of the Court only established that private money could not be federally controlled; this is because it was not federally created (in other words, privately created money was not unconstitutional, it was ‘non’-constitutional). The ruling cleverly skirted the question of who had the ‘money powers’ because states’ rights advocates could not win that argument. From this point forward, money became a privately controlled process that never needed to be legitimized by the Constitution.

The ensuing Panic of 1837, followed by the Civil War, followed by bank panics in every decade leading up to the turn of the twentieth century caused people to reconsider privately created money; in 1902, support started growing for the Fowler Bill, which proposed reinstating a Central Public Bank using the U.S. Treasury as the source of tax collection and dispersal of monies (in other words, Hamilton’s original bank). This is when Wall Street intervened, to ensure the ability to create money—however non-constitutional—remained with them.

When Wall Street fashioned the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 and got it pushed through Congress, Woodrow Wilson naively attempted to legitimize the Act by linking it to the Federal Government, for which there is no constitutional precedent. The decision did nothing to stop the failure of private banking, it merely provided it a financial safety net; ever since the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, taxpayer money has been parasitically drained to promote the limited welfare of private banking at the expense of the people’s General Welfare; the National Debt total (now at $31.8 trillion), as well as the Fed’s ‘reserve balances’ (currently $8.5 trillion)  represent the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of our private banking system, for which the American taxpayer must suffer. Congressman Wright Patman, who attempted to nationalize the Federal Reserve throughout the 1960s (to turn it into a Central Public Bank again), harassed the Fed relentlessly (and even audited them) until they finally began giving some of the profits back from their open market operations, because the interest accrued was all from taxpayer money (the Fed creates their money through buying Federal debt).

Bank panics are historically telling; the first one, in 1819, caused the nation to bring back Hamilton’s Bank (the Second Bank of the U.S.). The panic in 1837 happened once the Second Bank was vetoed out of existence by Jackson. The panic in 1907 kickstarted Wall Street’s Federal Reserve, to block the attempt for Congress to take back its Money Powers. The Great Depression of 1929 should have dissolved the Federal Reserve, but in another unprecedented and ‘non’ constitutional act (the McFadden Act of 1927) the Federal Reserve was re-chartered in perpetuity (all prior bank charters needed to be renewed every 20 years).

Once the Depression hit, private banks did not rebound until WWII (war is predictably profitable within hierarchal economics); the country rebounded sooner than private banks because Congress asserted its Money Powers and passed the Reconstruction Finance Corporation Actin 1932, which ran through the Treasury, and did the job of a National Public Bank while the private banks floundered. After the Reconstruction Finance Corporation was dismantled in 1957, private banks struggled in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s; in 2000, the ‘dot.com’ bubble burst. In 2007, the financial crisis hit. Covid caused a panic in 2020, and there have been bank failures in 2023 as well. The frivolous injections of supply side money creation have raised the rate of inflation 1066% since the RFC was shut down (as previously stated, housing has increased sixfold during that same period).

The Federal Reserve Act is ‘non’-constitutional, because there is no amendment to the Constitution allowing private banks to create money; Briscoe v. Kentucky makes this plain. The Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are ‘independent’ the same way capitalists are independent: they retain all their winnings and pass off all their losses to the American taxpayer.

Meanwhile, ten million homeowners were not bailed out by the mistakes of these ‘independent entities.’ Biological economics would assert that independence does not exist in closed loop environments; per Natural Law, the Supreme Court has established a clear precedent: if any entity receiving financial assistance from the federal government favors one group of people over another, it is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, for which monetary damages can be assessed. An equally clear precedent has been established regarding the Spending Clause, which holds Congress accountable if it fails to spend for the General Welfare or Common Defense of all citizens.

Wall Street and the Fed have immunity from prosecution for the damages to our housing market—even though they are almost entirely to blame—because these ‘independent’ agencies are not constitutionally bound to promote the General Welfare or provide for the Common Defense of the American people; that is the job of our federal government. The mistake the federal government made was to bail out these institutions instead of the American people, who pay the government (with their taxed labor value) to take care of their Life, Liberty, and Happiness. Per the Equal Protection Clause—and in conjunction with corporate personhood (banks are people, too)—when government bails out banks and other ‘artificial people’ (corporations) to the tune of $700 billion, the government is accountable—per the mandate to spend toward the General Welfare—to ‘similarly’ invest $700 billion in ‘similarly’ associated groups of people.

Although Congress unconstitutionally disconnected the people from their ‘Money Powers’, the people, through their labor, ironically remain the only source of money’s true power; money has no value without it.

1. Forget the gold standard, or any money conjured up by the Federal Reserve or its system of private banks; the only legitimate money inside private sector banks is the monetary deposits of its customers, who invest in each bank with their hard-earned labor value. Until recently, banks could only rent out their imaginary debt money if it was backed by a sufficient percentage of labor money.
2. Homeowners similarly put their labor money down as collateral to borrow the imaginary debt money, then proceed to fill the remaining hole with their labor. Home equity loans must be similarly backed, not by the home itself, but by the amount of legitimate labor money that has been already sunk into it.
   1. Biological economics asserts that a relationship is necessarily formed between borrower and lender during these economic connections. Liberty can only be attained through mutual relationships; parasitic relationships—a sign of hierarchal disconnection within intraspecific exchanges—create inequality, for which the federal government has been instituted to intervene and remedy. When federal government action furthers the inequality, legal remediation becomes necessary.
3. To infuse private banks with more lending power (deposits dwindle in economic downturns, of which there have been many), the Fed has attempted various money laundering techniques, flooding the economy with valueless fiat money, hoping that some legitimate labor value chooses to attach itself to it. Meanwhile, its purchases of treasury securities to inject money into the economy has dug a nine trillion-dollar hole (as of June 2022) that accounts for about 28.3% of our National Debt, therefore costing the American taxpayer almost $163 billion a year in added interest payments. 

To make the People’s main case, it is important to understand the sequence of events during the 2007-2008 Financial Crisis:

• After the dot.com bubble burst and 9/11 shook the economy, the Fed dropped the fed funds rate to 1% from 2002 to 2004 to encourage banks to borrow money and thus add more of it into the economy.
  • Why did the dot.com bubble burst? Ten years earlier, the Fed had also dropped the fed funds rate (1992-1994), which consequently injected too much imaginary (non-labor produced) money into circulation. Wall Street uses these fluctuations in the money supply to create alternating ‘bubbles’ in housing and secondary markets like the NASDQ; the money is flooded into a particular market, which gives the illusion that some value exists there. A shared belief begins to form, teasing the smaller ‘players’ to ante up their excess money and purchase assets at prices purposely inflated, whereupon the real players cash out (sell) and leave the game. This eventually bursts the bubble; the smaller players take the losses and the real players have laundered this imaginary money, now giving it the illusion of value, where it can be used to create a new bubble in a different market.
  • All this extra money comes directly from the Fed, who floods the market with imaginary money that Wall Street investors systematically grab onto with mechanisms such as economic rent, inflationary pricing, speculative investments, etc.; mechanisms that only can be accessed by people who accumulate money without having to labor for it (which, by Natural Law, should render this debt money valueless).
• Meanwhile, Congress-created (and government-backed) home mortgage agencies Fannie Mae (1938) and Freddie Mac (1970) were also trying to kickstart home ownership by purchasing private bank mortgages (as they are purposed to do) to encourage private banks to ‘greenline’ (versus redline) affordable housing options to lower-paid Americans (per the Equal Protection Clause). While the government purpose is noble, per the 1913 arrangement, it must take care of the private banks first, so that the banks will be ‘incentivized’ to take care of the American people (an unnecessary and wasteful intermediary step); it must also trust private sector bank loan practices and Federal Reserve policies, neither of which it can intervene to control, and neither of which are beholden to the 77% of Americans who are burdened with debt and need their services.
• When it saw the next wave of financial opportunity beginning to swell in this low-income housing market, Wall Street decided to copy Fannie and Freddie and began buying up private bank mortgages as well, then bundle them into mortgage-backed securities and other debt instruments. The difference? Wall Street’s motive was not to help Americans own their first home; it was to turn a profit. Riding the long history of success from government-sponsored mortgage-backed securities, Wall Street greenlined much riskier homebuyers, bought up their much riskier loans, then packaged them with AAA ratings, which was likely based on the solid track record of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
  • The Fed did not need to inject more money into the economy, there was already too much of it sitting around from winners of the dot.com bubble heist. To soak up all this cash, Wall Street had to ‘scrape the bottom of the barrel’ to purchase enough sketchy mortgages to bundle up and sell to any smaller players willing to hop on this rising wave of shared belief.
  • Wall Street supplies the pool (the market); the big players—with the debt money they have systematically squeezed out of the real economy—create waves of belief that become shared beliefs when smaller players choose to jump on and ride. The big players sell to the smaller players, take the extra money with them, and hop off the wave. The wave crashes down. The big players wait for the next wave. 
• To draw more loans to bundle up and sell, banks offered homebuyers the lowest interest rates in 40 years (‘teaser rates’), plus promised interest-only payments for the first few years; the ‘catch’ was the adjustable rate (ARM), which could (and did) go up at the same time the mortgage switched to include payments on principle-plus-interest (if Congress were truly in charge of their Money Powers, they never would have given lower-paid Americans a variable interest-only loan).
• What really started the crisis was the Fed raising the fed funds rate from 1% to over 5% by mid-2006. Their excuse? the economy was doing ‘too well.’ Why? Because Wall Street had flooded the market with all these high-risk loans. Why did they do this? Because the Fed had previously flooded the market with too much imaginary (non-labor produced) money, that Wall Street investors had grabbed through creating then bursting inflationary bubbles. The private banks were willing to make enormous amounts of ‘risky’ loans because Wall Street was willing to buy them and likely worked with the banks to ensure a steady flow of mortgages were coming in.
  • Too much money allowed to chase after too few essential goods (which suffer from inelastic demand) is the recipe for inflation, which makes the Fed criminally negligible for all the toxic effects inflation has wrought on the general population since the financial crisis. The Fed created the imaginary money that heated up the economy. They drove up the interest rates which forced 10 million home mortgages underwater. As owners walked away from their homes, they supplied Wall Street investment banks with the quantitative easing to buy up these delinquent Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans; now Wall Street is inflating the overall price of rent by driving up rent prices all around them, creating a rent bubble that may drive low-wage workers to walk away from their states. Wall Street is even back in the business of packaging and selling off mortgages too risky for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take. A conspiracy? The effect was certainly conspiratorial, but from the people’s perspective, it is only important to make sure it never happens again.
  • The government, meanwhile, was desperate enough to rid themselves of the failed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac underwater homes under their care that they (unbelievably) sold them to Wall Street. They are also guilty of using $700 billion in taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street instead of American homeowners; some of this bailout money was likely used by Wall Street to buy up the foreclosures they helped precipitate. Since We the People own the government, it is government that we must hold accountable, for their share in the unequal protection of the American citizen.

Think about this scenario from Wall Street’s perspective:

• Through one of their banks, Wall Street buys a lot of houses for a lot of lower income Americans. They make sure the borrowers can afford the initial loan; they buy the loan, then package it up and immediately sell it off to someone else, then also insure it through AIG. Meanwhile, their subsidiary local bank, that made the original loan, is collecting pure interest (perhaps they collected some initial money down on the principle as well);
• If the loan defaults, Wall Street already got paid when they sold off the MBS; they collected a few years of interest payments from the homebuyer, plus they now own the house, which they could resell, or as it turns out, could keep, and rent as an investment. In the end, the federal government even bought up most of these ‘bad loans’ with taxpayer money, adding it to the National Debt pile; Wall Street used the money to buy a couple hundred thousand more homes to rent out, many of which were offered by the federal government, who felt obligated to bail out Fannie and Freddie, but somehow did not feel obligated to those Americans who lost their homes through all of this. Perhaps this was the deal all along: the government buys the bad loans from Wall Street, then Wall Street gives the money back in exchange for the houses, which Wall Street can rent, thereby making the transaction look legitimate. Now Wall Street can inflate rents knowing that if one ‘investor’ walks away, another investor, desperate for shelter, would take their place. The benefits of inelastic demand.
• This scheme was always a win-win for Wall Street and a lose-lose (homeowner and taxpayer) for the American people; for the result to match the rational self-interest of one group so perfectly, the conclusion can only be that this group has firm control of the mechanisms underlying hierarchal economics: the banks, the government, and the government’s Money Powers. This, however, does not serve the General Welfare of all Americans, who—at least on paper—represent the major stakeholders in this United States government incorporation.

Ten million Americans had to foreclose on their homes; a court of law would not see this large of a number as a coincidence. $700 billion in taxpayer money was handed out to artificial people; three rounds of quantitative easing also injected $3.7 trillion dollars of debt into the economy, none of which went to these ten million homeowners, whose credit scores were destroyed. Private banks, even with all this new money, just sat on it; no lower income Americans could secure a loan, only Wall Street landlords. Un-Equal Protection of the law, which is enforceable IF federal financial assistance is involved. This represents a legal way into the hierarchal structure, where hopefully a seed can be planted to generate the correct practice of economics.

Although inflation has risen the cost of an average home to $406,000, it still only costs as little as $100 a square foot to build one. A loan of $700 billion to the American people could build 3.5 million homes across America; Congress owes the American people 10 million new homes, but if Americans were smart, they would not touch any debt money, though some $8.5 trillion of it is currently floating around from Federal Reserve quantitative easing.

Ten million homes, disseminated ‘generally’ and not “locally” throughout the United States—per Equal Protection and General Welfare—would amount to approximately 23,000 homes per Congressional District (of which there are 435), or 3,284 new homes per 109,000-resident community (there are seven of these communities per Congressional District, which typically averages 763,000 residents). Hopefully that puts in perspective just how devastating the Wall Street banking industry was to every American community.

The People’s case will ask for our hard-earned tax money to be put into a separate National Public Bank, to make fixed rate interest loans to ten million American families who were not afforded Equal Protection of the law. Because taxed money is labor money, it does not disappear once the loan is paid back. Once all ten million homes are paid back, the federal government would have loaned out $2 trillion, and gotten back $3.44 trillion; Congress might wish to rebuild the energy grid with this, with another self-liquidating loan (meaning Americans pay into the National Bank with their monthly energy bill). A $3.44 trillion loan, when paid back, would leave Congress with $5.9 trillion. Perhaps Congress could build Americans a high-speed fiber optic Communication Grid and completely new Water / Sewer infrastructure, for which Americans could pay off through low-cost monthly bills. Congress would have $10.2 trillion by that point, or around $30,000 for every American age 0 to 100. This is the power of a National Public Bank. Congress—and only Congress—has legal title to the Money Powers, though it can only disseminate money to promote the General Welfare. Currently, it performs neither of these functions; before charges of gross negligence or dereliction of duty are filed, the avenue of Equal Protection should be explored, as it may provide long term benefits such as the ones mentioned, versus some short-lived financial compensation that does nothing to fix the problem.

Natural Law requires connection, which at the societal level can only be achieved through a shared belief; Money is the shared belief that best encompasses all the economic issues Americans need to address, therefore the People must ultimately reclaim possession of the Money Powers for the Congress, so that it may more correctly tie our fates together through it.

1. Allow Congress to Settle ‘Out of Court.’

Purpose: to seekEqual Protection for homeowners, renters, and small businesses through the Congressional Money Powers.

Arguments:

• People own their labor, and thus the positive value created by their labor.
• Taxation is an extraction from the positive value of labor.
• Congress was granted the power to tax the value of labor (Sixteenth Amendment, est. 1909), but only has the power to spend it on promoting the “General Welfare.”
  • The Spending Clause grants Congress the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and the general Welfare of the United States.” The Supreme Court’s interpretation of this clause generally follows the Federalist (or “originalist”) view proposed by Alexander Hamilton, that “the object, to which an appropriation of money is to be made, must be general, and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.” 
• To correct for any misuse of this power, the citizenry has the authority to invoke the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, est. 1868 (which chronologically takes precedence over the Sixteenth Amendment), to ensure that one group is not afforded protections or opportunities that other groups are not.
  • Chronological precedent is a feature of the ‘common law’ embraced by hierarchy; to deny precedent under these findings would potentially abrogate many of the hierarchal laws that rely on precedent to exist, such as corporate personhood or money as free speech, for example.
  • Importantly, precedent exists to seek Equal Protection based on discriminatory actions, though the laws surrounding those actions may be non-discriminatory in their wording.
• Further, Natural Law would assert that the “Common Defense” of multicellular existence is predicated on connection, to secure communication and thus enables homeostatic balance.
  • Therefore, the correct definition of the “Common Defense” is to tend to the emotional health of the people (health ‘care’) utilizing improved connection and communication, toward a goal of homeostatic balance.
  • Violence seeks disconnection, which only creates a positive feedback loop of further disconnection, so is unacceptable as an intraspecific strategy among the human population; if violence or disconnection exists, it can no longer be the job of government to provide it, nor the responsibility of the taxpayer to fund it.
• Therefore, it is a misuse of funds to spend taxed labor value that does not promote General Welfare, or provide Common Defense; per each citizen’s Liberty, when their labor value is not being used for these purposes, the people have a right to refuse to be an accomplice in this misappropriation of funds.

We would ask Congress to fulfill its duties in a legal manner:

• If it must tax real value away from labor, then spend it to promote the General Welfare.
• Since people generate the shared belief in money, as well as provide all the collateral for facilitating this shared belief (through their private bank deposits, through borrowing, through interest payments on the National Debt, which is the source of the treasury securities that fund private bank money creation), the people should have an ownership stake in the institutions that represent these shared beliefs, namely government, money, and the banks that create this money.
• The founders of American government understood well enough the Money Powers they conferred upon themselves; they created a National Public Bank to disseminate the taxes they collected, where it became the only constitutionally legal instrument devised to promote the General Welfare and provide for the Common Defense.
• Natural Law posits that only through shared beliefs do people connect at the societal level of economics, which necessitates each person’s liberty choice to connect, making each person a stakeholder in maintaining the shared belief which secures the connection. For us to have a belief in government or money, we must also have a ‘share’ in them, as well as all the means and mediums of connection for which we are willing to forsake our labor and labor value to secure, per our belief in connection as the sole means of existence.

Stipulations:

• Remove QE and other excess money from circulation.
• Commit taxpayer money to a housing fund, through a Public Bank, to either build affordable housing or provide mortgages for lower income Americans.
  • Utilize economies of scale; do not use private contractors, only private labor, to control costs. Per the General Welfare, build ten million homes throughout the U.S. to provide affordable housing free from the imposition of inflationary economic rent; this will ‘generally’ help everyone by lowering overall inflation.
• Reassert Congressional Money Powers; allow the Fed and Wall Street to continue operations but disconnect their privately created money from public responsibility; the people can no longer be the safety net for money that is not Constitutional.
  • Further, because private money creation is only backed by deposits gleaned from labor, offer options for public banks to accept depositor’s money, where average Americans can become legitimate stakeholders who receive a fair percentage of the bank’s ‘profits.’
• Match subsidies for Energy, Agriculture, Aviation, or Motor Vehicles toward businesses in green energy, vertical and regenerative farming, electric planes, and cars, respectively. Through a National Public Bank, these funds can come in the form of loans, so that they are paid back with moderate interest, allowing for the money to be repurposed toward other small business ventures that promote the General Welfare in sustainable ways.

2. Constitutional Challenge: Private Money Creation is ‘Independent’ of Congressional Money Powers

Purpose: Either the Federal Reserve is tied to the Congressional Money Powers through Congress, who created it (and thus is also tied to the Congressional Money parameters to spend and tax toward the General Welfare—or Equal Protection—of all citizens), or it is not (and thus the American taxpayer is not obligated to bail out privately created money if it fails). We need Supreme Court clarification on which it is.

Arguments:

1. Briscoe v. Kentucky (1837)

• Briscoe v. Kentucky (1837) remains the only ruling in favor of private money creation, deeming it a non-constitutional issue, as private money is clearly not authorized by the federal government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve Act did NOT transfer the Congressional Money Powers to the private sector, neither did it tie privately created money to the Congressional Money Powers.
  • Briscoe v. Kentucky established that all corporations are afforded a barrier between them and the entity who established them, and it is on this technicality that the new court declared that the currency Kentucky banks issued was not state-issued money, but corporate money.
• Therefore, the Federal Government is under no legal obligation to use taxpayer money to stabilize the monetary mistakes of the Federal Reserve or its private banks; Congress has erroneously bailed out the private banking industry, when it has no obligation to do so.
• Meanwhile, Congress is obligated to spend toward the General Welfare of its citizenry.

We request a declaration that indeed no connection exists between private bank money creation and the Money Powers Congress has to tax and spend the real labor value of its citizens toward their General Welfare.

2. The National Currency Act of 1864

On June 20, 1874, a Senate resolution amended the National Currency Act of 1864 to instead be called the National Banking Act of 1864; here is the original title:

An Act to provide a National Currency, secured by a Pledge of United
States Bonds, and to provide for the Circulation and Redemption thereof.

The original text reads as follows:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that there shall be established in the treasury department a separate bureau, which shall be charged with the execution of this and all other laws that may be passed by congress respecting the issue and regulation of a national currency secured by United States bonds. The chief officer of the said bureau shall be denominated the Comptroller of the Currency and shall be under the gen­eral direction of the Secretary of the Treasury. 

Here is the amended version (no date is provided for this amendment, or whether it was voted upon by either house of Congress; note that any reference to enactment by Congress has been removed):

“100. Sec. 324.—There shall be in the Department of the Treasury a bureau charged with the execution of all laws passed by Congress relating to the issue and regulation of a national currency secured by United States bonds and, under the general supervision of the Federal Reserve Board, of all Federal reserve notes, the chief officer of which bureau shall be called the Comptroller of the Cur­rency and shall perform his duties under the general directions of the Secretary of the Treasury.

The text of this bill has been altered many times; many of the alterations occurred after the Federal Reserve Act was passed, so the purpose can only be to establish—however poorly—some legal precedent for a Private Central Bank.

The “National Currency Act” was established for the Federal Government to “issue and regulate a national currency secured by United States bonds [war bonds] …the name assumed by such association, [added 1959] which name shall include the word ‘national’ and be subject to the approval of the Comptroller [also added in 1959 then removed again in 1982].” Note: the Comptroller was removed from the Federal Board with the Banking Act of 1935; does federal government need 47 years to do its paperwork?

Thechanges are enough to abrogate the entire Banking Act of 1864, because the alteration changes the entire purpose of the bill, thus rendering the original bill “fully inoperative.”

There is no constitutional precedent for privately created money, thus The entire Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional;by altering the National Currency Act to become the National Banking Act of 1864, it superficially converted private state banks into ‘National Banks’ purely by naming them the “National Bank of [X,Y,Z].” Presumably, this would make National Banks somehow Constitutionally legitimate because McCulloch v Maryland ruled that National Banks are constitutional? The ruling was supposed to legitimize Congressionally created banks, not state or private banks.

1. The original 1864 Act was not called “The National Bank Act,” it was called “An Act to provide a National Currency,” and nothing more.
2. When reading the Act it becomes clear that the intention of it was only to peddle “United States [war] Bonds;” most importantly,
3. The original Act never said that new banks needed to use the word “National” in their title; this provision was added in 1874.

Therefore, the Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional for at least two reasons:

1. The National Currency Act, designed to create a national currency through war bonds, was altered to create private banks, call them ‘national banks,’ and create the money themselves when they made bank loans to American citizens who believed the money had come by way of their Federal Government. The altering of this 1864 act effectively abrogates it, and thus abrogates any legislation upon which it is built.
2. The creation of the FDIC, quantitative easing, government subsidies and Wall Street bailouts are therefore unconstitutional acts perpetrated on the American taxpayer, who was forced to foot the bill for bailing out money that was not publicly (constitutionally) legitimate.

In the case of We the People v. Hierarchal Economics, we would want the courts to confirm the following rulings:

• Bristoe v. Kentucky (1837): Congress has no power to forbid the creation of private bills of credit, as they are NOT under any federal jurisdiction; it does, however, retain it right to disseminate and regulate publicly created money toward the General Welfare.
• National Currency Act (1864): altering it from a currency act to legitimizing private banks if they are named National Banks essentially changes their entire purpose, therefore abrogating the entire act.
• Federal Reserve Act (1913): no act of Congress is a substitute for Constitutional articles or amendments; in other words, the Federal Reserve Act in no way relinquishes Congressional Money Powers to the Federal Reserve Bank
• The National Bank Act of 1935: once the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller were removed from the Federal Reserve Board, there is absolutely nothing tying the Federal Reserve to the Money Powers designated by Congress.
  • If the Supreme Court rules that this is not so and ties any Money Powers to the Federal Reserve, it would also tie the Federal Reserve to the Spending Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, giving the People grounds to sue the Federal Reserve for not disseminating their Money Powers toward the equal opportunity of all citizens. It would also invoke the ‘separate is not equal’ ruling of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) which would provide grounds for reestablishing a National Public Bank, along with local subsidiary banks (which have shareholders and enjoy ‘corporate personhood’) to desegregate private banking and connect all the money together under one roof.

Notes:

• Per Natural Law, only taxed labor value constitutes real money, so the hole known as the National Debt has, at best, a negative value and cannot be conjoined with the Congressional power to coin money and regulate its value.
• To corner both the Fed and the government, the lawsuit would likely need to name both as co-conspirators.

3. Civil Lawsuit: Federally Financed Institutions Must Provide Equal Protection

Purpose: Federally financed institutions must provide Equal Protection in regard to money allocation per the Fourteenth Amendment; the federal government bailed out Wall Street corporations (artificial people) through taxpayer money over failed home mortgages; therefore, it must similarly compensate A) people who suffered from failed home mortgages, as well as B) people affected by all rent payments above the inflation average (caused by Wall Street owning the foreclosed properties).

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment (1868) has expanded its scope to help nearly every group except the one for which it was originally intended. As early as 1886, the 14^th Amendment was widened to include Chinese immigrants (in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356) and corporate shareholders (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394).

Yick Wo v. Hopkins established an important precedent: even though laws are not discriminatory in their wording, if enforced in a discriminatory way, then the enforcement violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Takeaway: The law will judge discrimination by actions as well as words.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad established that “an aggregate of rights-bearing shareholders…[do] not forsake their constitutional rights” when they ‘incorporate,’ thus when a corporation—as an ‘artificial person’—feels “substantially burdened” by some tax, for instance, then equal protection implies that shareholders must feel similarly persecuted. The notion that a corporation is afforded the same equal protections as any person only exists because it is tied to the idea that an individual does not lose their constitutional rights when they become part of a group.

Takeaway: When Wall Street corporations are “substantially burdened,” then their “shareholders” must feel similarly persecuted; when banks are bailed out, then homeowners—as shareholders in the bank—must feel similarly persecuted through the foreclosure of their homes. Therefore, equal protection must be afforded corporations as well as shareholders, otherwise, individuals ARE forsaking their constitutional rights when they ‘incorporate.’

• The lawsuit must first establish the relationship between the borrower and the lender, such that the borrower should have Equal Protection under the law the same as the corporation whose ‘investors’ are its shareholders, whether they represent depositors, borrowers, or simply taxpayers footing the bill for the debt money banks are handing out.

Title IX (of the Civil Rights Act) (1972) established that “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

Takeaway: Again, being part of a group does not negate an individual’s constitutional right to equal protection of the law; thus, if males can receive financial ‘aid’ then females are due the same financial treatment, especially when the aid is federally granted.

In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Equal Protection Clause was cited to correctly assert that ‘separate’ could never be ‘equal.’

Takeaway: Natural Law asserts that only through connection can homeostatic balance be achieved and maintained. A student living in a financially disadvantaged neighborhood will not receive the same educational opportunity as a student living in a financially advantaged community; the only assistance Constitutional law can give is to remove any artificial barriers to opportunity (disconnection) placed between citizens who are equal under Natural Law.

• Similarly, a bank in a financially disadvantaged community does not offer its residents the same opportunity as a bank in a financially advantaged community; separate private banks also do not provide equal protection.

In Loving v. Virginia (1967), the subject was interracial marriage. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) involved affirmative action. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) protected same-sex marriage. In Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex,’ which tied the Equal Protection Clause to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which “prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.”

Conclusions:

Through these rulings, Equal Protection has been afforded individuals tied together by ethnicity, financial investment, financial need, gender, citizenry, need of employment, similar social values, etc.— in other words, no group can be denied Equal Protection if its shared belief is strong enough to advocate for itself. The Equal Protection Clause is activated when similarly connected groups are not treated similarly under the law; protection has mostly centered around providing equal opportunity, which has encompassed education, finance, employment, and even marriage.

The 2007-2008 Financial Crisis centered around one connection: groups of people who invested in home mortgages. One group, citizens, invested in home mortgages and lost 10 million of them when the cost was arbitrarily raised by the Federal Reserve at the same time wealthy investors cashed out of their real estate speculations and Wall Street ran out of people wishing to buy homes at excessively inflated rates. The other group, Wall Street, encouraged then bought up the riskiest of these home loans, packaged them up in toxic asset-backed securities and sold them all over the world, falsely advertising their stability. In the end, it was this second group that the federal government chose to help.

Congress does not exercise its Money Powers through the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve exercises Money Powers it does not have by manipulating debt instruments the U.S. Treasury is instructed to leave unattended.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can authorize lawsuits that seek monetary damages against states “pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment.” In The People v. Hierarchal Economics, homeowners will seek Equal Protection as a group seeking the same amount of taxpayer welfare that the banks who foreclosed on them received. The federal government and the people are no strangers to private sector bank failures; the people only wish to be treated similarly to past victims (through the precedent established in 1929).

• Data shows that 6% of loans sponsored by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were delinquent during the period from 2001 through 2008; Wall Street loans were delinquent on their payments 27% of the time (4.5 times more). Fannie and Freddie made no risky loans until Wall Street lowered the bar; by 2007, 42% of Wall Street’s loans went bust. Even then, only 5% of Fannie and Freddie loans were made to borrowers under the 620 FICO credit score cutoff signaling ‘subprime’ lending practices; Wall Street loans went under this bar 30% of the time. ^[016]
• In the end, only 2.2% of Fannie and Freddie-backed mortgages went into foreclosure, “compared to 13% of all subprime mortgages, 11.3 percent of all Alt-A mortgages, and 2.9 percent of all prime mortgages.” ^[017]
• Importantly, the last time homes were threatened with massive foreclosure was the Great Depression (1929); the government opted to create the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, a National Public Bank, which bought and refinanced 1 million defaulted home mortgages at lower rates; the government simply held the mortgages until they were all paid off.
• In 2016, the federal government’s new strategy was to auction off 95% of its ‘distressed mortgages’ to Wall Street Investors at rock-bottom prices with no stipulations concerning how Wall Street might handle this essential needs investment; private equity firms like Blackstone L.L.C. acquired more than 200,000 single-family homes, that it now rents at increasingly exorbitant prices under company names such as Strategic Property Management (Strategic Acquisitions), Colony American Homes (Colony Capital), Invitation Homes, or Starwood Waypoint. ^[018]
• Another recent real estate grab bought up another $60 billion worth of properties, driving housing prices up but not home ownership; “fundamentally altering housing ecosystems in ways we’re only now beginning to understand.” ^[019] More easy to comprehend is that middle-income homeowners were driven out by foreclosures, so all the current gains (from the average home price of $250k to the 2023 price of $501k) have gone to Wall Street investment companies and their shareholders.

Arguments:

• There must be a shared belief in the value of money for it to exist; shared beliefs, as well as economics itself, necessarily creates relationships between all groups. The Constitution of the United States claims to secure Liberty; equal relationships are mutual relationships; it is government’s job to provide Equal Protection so that relationships do not turn parasitic.
• Banks base their credibility on 1) the labor value of its depositors, which allows 2) borrowers who promise to replace privately created debt with their labor value, thus increasing the assets of the bank. Finally, the private bank gets reserve funds from 3) the federal debt, where again the taxpayer’s labor value serves as the financial backing for the bank’s existence, as well as any bailout money for lenders (through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) or depositors (through the FDIC). The contention is that together, this proves that the American people are shareholders in the banks they fund, therefore if the artificial corporation, which is federally financed, receives welfare, then through the Equal Protection and General Spending Clauses, Congress needs to similarly provide for groups similarly inflicted.
• Since money was loaned and (mostly) paid back by Wall Street, the People’s stipulation would be to similarly use taxpayer money loaned out through the Constitutionally-approved National Public Bank within the U.S. Treasury, to extend home loans to Americans who lost their homes, or have been forced—by the ensuing inflation caused by the poor strategies implemented during the Financial Crisis—to face exorbitant rent prices from the encroachment of Wall Street landlords into their communities.

The overall message of Equal Protection is that everyone feels unprotected. In the area of housing, blacks have suffered redlining, blockbusting, eminent domain, gentrification, and have seen their houses devalued along with their social worth. Everyone else should be getting in line behind them, but this is not how society is currently organized. When the Fourteenth Amendment was first ratified, it wound up helping corporations more than any other group; the hope is that this litigation will reverse that trend.

4. Parallel Litigation: Misuse of Congressional Spending Clause

(Corporate Welfare is not the General Welfare)

Purpose: Through the Spending Clause, Congress has the power to tax and spend in aid of the General Welfare, but any federal grant of money cannot be given to one group at the expense of another. Again, Equal Protection hovers over all Congressional spending allocations, so the federal grant of American homes to Wall Street landlords would imply a similar grant of home be provided the American taxpayer.

Arguments:

When federal government subsidizes high-end corporations with taxpayer money (extracted from labor, rather than renting out privately created money that must be paid back with interest), it does so through the Congressional mechanism of promoting ‘the General Welfare.’ Some subsidies (given over to agriculture, energy, water, healthcare) create the illusion that consumer prices remain stable for these essential needs, but the industries ultimately receive the full asking price (exchange value) for their products; the illusion that inflation is being controlled is just an illusion. Some subsidies (like Amazon) provide tax incentives to large companies to locate in certain areas and bring jobs with them. Often, people in poorer areas are not the ones hired; instead, people end up commuting to these jobs, so again, the illusion that equal opportunity is being disseminated is an illusion (it is estimated that even state and local governments spend as much as $30 billion a year enticing businesses to their area). Some subsidies (Boeing, GM, Ford) are meant to encourage production of certain products, but basically serve to prop up industries that are in decline.

Government is instituted among people to manage the economics through which their Life, Liberty, and Happiness is realized. The United States Government has decided (for now) to use hierarchal economics as its operating system; the main tenet of creating ‘balance’ in a ‘free’ marketplace is competition. Therefore, the People will seek one of two options:

Be allowed to retain their taxed labor value to be pooled for small business loans, spent—per the Spending Clause—through a National Public Bank capable of disseminating it in a “general” versus “local” manner (designed for small farms, green energy, local food production, electric airplane alternatives, etc., that can compete in every local community and thus represent an overall feel of competition), or

Demand an equivalent amount, per the Spending Clause, to be disseminated toward green energy (fossil fuel gets $20 billion), agriculture (which received $50 billion in 2020), transportation (airlines got $14 billion in 2021, car companies received $81 billion overall), tech companies ($52 billion from the feds, $9.3 billion from states) and communication ($65 billion for new broadband).

On the above numbers alone, the People could sue (through the Tucker Act) for a minimum of $210 billion in taxpayer money, which could be dispersed through National Public Bank loans for essential needs businesses supplying competitive next generation products. Whatever is paid back from the loans represents the People’s investment in themselves (which makes everyone shareholders and fulfills the General Welfare requirement); instead of the money adding to the National Debt or becoming a sunk cost dumped onto the American taxpayer (the usual federal government model), this money will get paid back and can be reused for other projects.

5. Constitutional Challenge: Misuse of Taxpayer Money Toward ‘Common Defense’ and ‘General Welfare’

Purpose: The spirit of U.S. Constitutional Law is Natural Law, and it is important that Americans reestablish this original Law, to see that it is duly applied to current Supreme Court decisions. Once Natural Law is reestablished, it will render much of Congressional spending unconstitutional.

Natural Law asserts that violence is an emotional communication meant to signal a disconnection exists; when the disconnection is systemically generated, it will create an imbalance (because connection cannot disperse it) and drive a positive feedback loop of further violence, which manifests itself in internal and external disorders:

External Costs

• Department of Defense: now at $1 trillion per year (three times the cost of any other country); $1.99 trillion is available through Congress. The United States has been at war for 225 of its 243 years).
• Gun Violence: guns kill 43,000 people a year and represent 71% of homicide deaths. 59% of gun deaths are suicides, however.
• Mass Incarceration: costs $182 billion to run, rises to $300 billion counting cost to police neighborhoods, and jumps to $1.2 trillion when including damages to society.
• National Debt: currently stands at $31.8 trillion.
• Environmental costs of pollution: estimated at $500 billion a year, with another $361 billion in health costs.

Internal Costs:

• Healthcare Costs: $4.8 trillion (#1 in cost in the world)
• Alcohol: costs $249 billion overall each year ($192 billion in direct health costs).
• Drug Abuse: a $152.4 billion cost per year.
• Smoking: more than $300 billion a year ($170 billion in direct healthcare cost alone).
• Cancer: over $200 billion in direct healthcare costs each year.
• Diabetes: $245 billion is spent each year; $175 billion represents direct healthcare costs.

The U.S. Constitution is based on Natural Law; where Natural Law is compromised, grounds for constitutional challenges to statutes exist. In common law, upon which early rulings were based, judicial precedent is binding. Because the Equal Protection of all people was not a precedent at the founding of the United States, the tenets of civil law have also been used, which are not as beholden to precedent, but founded upon legal codes, which become useful when precedent proves corrosive to civil liberty.

Arguments:

• Out of every taxpayer dollar, 29 cents is spent on healthcare costs ($1.6 trillion); 14 cents is spent on the military industrial complex ($877 billion in 2022). Nearly 8 cents out of every dollar is spent on environmental issues, and 3 cents is spent to incarcerate American citizens.
• Natural Law asserts that only through connection can homeostatic balance be achieved, and only through balance will external and internal manifestations of violence dissipate. Disconnection from each other drives uncertainty, which drives the toxic effects of stress that leads to many internal disorders. Past traumatic experience still resonates epigenetically, whether through the stress of war or discrimination. Wealth disparity drives imbalance and uncertainty, and leads to depression, suicide, domestic violence, child abuse, and many other manifestations of violence.
• Per Liberty, people own the value of their labor, therefore it is through the mechanism of Liberty that people have a choice to NOT have their taxpayer money used for purposes that are proven to be detrimental to the health of the people and the planet; this, in effect, makes them accomplices to traditions of hierarchal oppression and violence that will not dissipate until the systemic mechanisms of hierarchal disconnection are dismantled.
  • Liberty is the mechanism of choice, which is driven by beliefs; the Constitution is protective of people’s beliefs. The belief that only labor can convert potential resources into value leads to the idea that taxation of one’s labor value diminishes a percentage of Liberty, as it limits choices. To not diminish the liberty of its citizens, yet still provide the means and mediums of connection necessary for the successful operation of economics, taxation should represent a share of these connections that facilitate economics and not diminish it.

6. Case Against the Federal Reserve: Failure to Meet its Objectives

Purpose: Independent ‘Government-Sponsored Enterprises’ (GSAs) like the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac do the work of Federal Government; they are simply the tools of government, created to serve a specific purpose. The tool of the Federal Reserve was created to maximize jobs, stabilize inflation, and keep interest rates moderate. During the Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, the Fed not only failed to meet any of its objectives, but it actively caused unemployment, inflation, and interest rate hikes (which precipitated the foreclosures) through its policy choices. Therefore, it is incumbent upon government to rethink the mechanism through which it disseminates its Money Powers.

During the aftermath of the Financial Crisis, ten million people defaulted on their home loans, nine million people lost their jobs, and when the housing bubble burst, homes went back down to an average price of around $250,000. That was in 2012; by 2023, housing prices climbed back up over $500,000 (an average increase of 100%). The difference this time is that a large percentage of the homeowners are now Wall Street investors, who bought up the foreclosures—many of them from the federal government.

When the government wasn’t handing the houses directly over to Wall Street, to get them off Fannie and Freddie’s books, Wall Street types were showing up with cash to outbid residents, such that neighborhood dynamics would never be the same. The mechanics of inflation were exposed, however; ownership of essential goods and services by profit-seeking types ‘banks’ on inelastic demand to get whatever price they ask, meanwhile the general public soon joins the price gouging event. Thus, the mechanism that federal government uses to secure its Money Powers purposely drives inflation that serves the ‘limited welfare’ of Wall Street investors; taxpayers are asked to pay further nonreciprocal obligations (rent) to these landlords, which in no way facilitates the Equal Protection of both parties.

Jobs were lost. Inflation was not curbed. Interest rates were purposely ‘fluctuated’ by the Fed, which singlehandedly drove the foreclosures that caused the housing collapse.

National Debt is created when the government pays out money, sometimes for labor, sometimes as pure economic rent, so that the private sector will not charge its inflated prices directly to the citizens (although the citizens pay for it anyway, through their taxes). Some debt covers economic infrastructure that aids the private sector, who then charges the taxpayer to use it. Once the money is paid out, and the National Debt sits in the Treasury, it is converted to ‘securities’ and placed in the banks of the primary dealers in these ‘debt instruments.’

Primary Dealers

The so-called ‘shadow banking’ division of Wall Street sees these holdings as assets through which to leverage many of their unregulated dealings, presumably with the confidence that if they fail, the government will bail them out, since they hold these assets hostage.

During the $9 trillion in Federal Reserve quantitative easing, the Fed removes $9 trillion worth of these securities from the primary dealerships, giving up newly created cash for it instead. This ‘cash’ is now moved out of the shadows and into the private banking system accessible by the general population. The shadow banking system is not necessarily pleased by this because it affords them less ‘leverage,’ but for quite a long time, even the private banks were holding onto the assets, preferring to use it as leverage, too.

Likely, the claims of poor Money Power management will simply be folded into the general case for Equal Protection, but the evidence shows that Wall Street certainly has leverage over the federal government and appears to have more leverage over the private banks than the Fed who supplies the banks with their debt money.

7. Equal Protection for Federal Government Employees

Purpose: To ensure future employees of the Federal Government—who received federal tax dollars—also receive Equal Protection, campaign laws need to be changed so that each viable candidate receives equal funding.

Arguments:

• It costs $24 million to buy a seat in the Senate; $3.4 million to sit in the House of Representatives.
• The average American does not have this kind of money, but Wall Street does, as well as the wealthy donors of the two current political parties; if any ‘average American’ wants to sit in one of those seats, they must become a paid marketer for Wall Street or whichever party hires them to sell their brand of politics (meanwhile, both now market capitalism).
• The Supreme Court decision in Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) gave the private sector the right to financially support the candidate of their choice.
• As federal elections are financially aided by the federal government, Equal Protection of all Candidates (as a group) requires that it matches whatever campaign contributions are given to private sector candidates, otherwise one candidate is disadvantaged. Because elected officials receive financial assistance (salaries), all candidates deserve Equal Protection of the means to secure employment.
  • It is through federal statutes that the idea of corporate personhood is legitimized, and through federal government that citizens are allowed to participate in government.

8. Application for an Equal Opportunity Grant:

Grant to Run a Beta Test Implementing Natural Law

Purpose: Biological Economics and the principles of Natural Law take precedence over the current systems being used; through implementation of these foundational laws, the negative externalities of hierarchal economics would soon disappear. The contention is that ‘nature’ is the ‘constant’ (C) and therefore the only way to solve societal issues is through establishing an ‘environment’ that nurtures the results Americans hope to achieve (current government mandates dictate a desire for Equal Protection, General Welfare, Common Defense, etc.). Natural Law posits that creating an environment specifically designed to dispense these concepts should theoretically ‘nudge’ people toward external and internal ‘economic’ health. To prove this theory, a Beta Test is needed.

Sources For Funding a Natural Law Beta Test

1. Corporate Subsidies top $100 billion a year; the top ten corporations alone have received nearly $75 billion in taxpayer money; 70 different companies have received more than $1 billion each.
   1. The beta test look to incorporate an entire community, through the corporate entity of a public bank; the grant money would go into the bank, where it would rebuild the community and create jobs that render services for which the people would pay; these payments would go back into the bank. The test is whether the community can flourish without inflation (i.e., extra money creation).
2. Federal Government handed out $700 billion in bailouts for the Wall Street 2007-2008 financial crisis. Evidence shows this bailout money was spent on individual bonuses and was used as seed money to buy up several hundred thousand of the foreclosures they had caused.
   1. The test would be rendered in the poorest communities, to help ‘bail out’ this group of Americans who do not lose their individual rights to Equal Protection simply by being in this group; the Spending Clause would best be served by choosing one community in each state to promote the General Welfare.
3. The Federal Reserve has created debt money (“monetized the debt”)—through quantitative easing—equal to nearly $9 trillion. The money has been used by private banks who do not equally protect American citizens. Meanwhile, 10 million individuals and families lost their homes (and 9 million people lost their jobs) between 2006 and 2014, raising the number living in poverty to 46.5 million. The U.S. National Deficit consequently rose from $9 trillion in 2007 to $31.8 trillion currently.
   1. If the federal government does not want to expend real (taxed labor) money to fund this project, it could repurpose some of the $9 trillion it already created, most of which sits in banks losing value and further taxing the American laborer (through ever-increasing interest rates on the National Debt).

Communities Outside the Equal Protection of Federal Government

1. New York Congressional District 15:            36.2% below poverty
2. Michigan Congressional District 13:                         29.6% below poverty
3. Kentucky Congressional District 5:              29.1% below poverty
4. Texas Congressional District 34:                   27.8% below poverty
5. Louisiana Congressional District 2:              27.1% below poverty
6. California Congressional District 16:           26.7% below poverty
7. Mississippi Congressional District 2:            26.2% below poverty
8. Pennsylvania Congressional District 2:        26.0% below poverty
9. Texas Congressional District 15:                   25.7% below poverty
10. Ohio Congressional District 11:                    25.6% below poverty
11. New York Congressional District 13:            25.4% below poverty
12. Louisiana Congressional District 5:              25.1% below poverty
13. Georgia Congressional District 2:                 25.0% below poverty
14. California Congressional District 21:           24.7% below poverty
15. Alabama Congressional District 7:               24.6% below poverty
16. Arizona Congressional District 7:                 24.2% below poverty
17. Texas Congressional District 29:                   24.1% below poverty
18. Tennessee Congressional District 9:              24.0% below poverty
19. Pennsylvania Congressional District 1:        23.9% below poverty
20. South Carolina Congressional District 6:     23.8% below poverty
21. Texas Congressional District 28:                   23.6% below poverty
22. West Virginia Congressional District 3:       23.3% below poverty
23. Louisiana Congressional District 4:              23.2% below poverty
24. New York Congressional District 7:              23.0% below poverty
25. California Congressional District 40:           22.6% below poverty^[020]

Children’s academic success is directly related to their poverty status; those who live below the poverty line have greater health issues and reduced ability to focus on school. Data also indicates that parents have a significant impact on the academic ambitions of their children; school spending seems less of a factor and more an indication that high-achieving parents live in wealthier neighborhoods, where the demand for educational spending and academic success combine with the emotional need for these neighborhoods to look and appear more prestigious.^[021]

1. Alabama: Chickasaw City Schools, Mobile County

In the Chickasaw district, 41.3% of school-age children live below the poverty line. School spending averages $9,400 a child; only 14% of residents in this country have attained a bachelor’s degree.

2. Alaska: Lower Kuskokwim School District, Bethel Census Area

37.5% of school-age children live in poverty here, despite spending more than $32,000 per child; only 13% of adults attain a bachelor’s degree in this area, which indicates that throwing money at this problem is not enough. Biologically, disconnection (from the whole) and connection (to fit into one’s surroundings) both play a part in the perpetuation of overall financial disparity.

3. Arizona: Window Rock Unified School District 8, Apache County

44.4% of children live in poverty. Children receive nearly $15,000 a year in school expenditures; 11% of adults end up with a bachelor’s degree.  

4. Arkansas: Osceola School District, Mississippi County

40.1% of children live below the poverty line; per student spending is around $12,000, with only 9% of adults eventually attaining a bachelor’s degree (interestingly, children raised by parents with a college education will tend to follow their parents’ lead).

5. California: Mendota Unified School District, Fresno County

Students receive only $11,000 a year in school expenditures and only 2% of parents possess a bachelor’s degree, further illustrating the importance of parental guidance in academic attainment.

6. Colorado: Las Animas School District, Bent County

• Location: Bent County

Annual per student spending is only $7,000; 10% of adults earn a bachelor’s degree. The lower cost represents a lack of teachers in this district; class sizes average 40 students per teacher.

7. Connecticut: Hartford Public Schools, Hartford County

• With annual per student spending at nearly $20,000 but less than 17% going on to get a college degree, parental role modeling stands out as the more significant factor.

8. Delaware: Woodbridge School District, Sussex County

Although the country only expends $14,000 per child, again the percentage of adult with a bachelor’s degree—13% —is the more prominent factor.

9. Florida: Hamilton County School District, Hamilton County

The child poverty rate of 34.3%; student spending is less than $11,000 annually, and only 9% of adults earn a bachelor’s degree.

10. Georgia: Stewart County School District, Stewart County

While student spending is relatively high—$15,000 per child—only 11% of parents earn a bachelor’s degree.

Conclusions:

Perhaps success should not be measured financially or academically, but economically; is the economic infrastructure in place to promote a healthy lifestyle (through physical and emotional connection, as well as the opportunity to exercise liberty and contribute through labor).

The Beta Test should not require more than $600 million per year for four years to achieve a measurable result, or $2.4 billion per community deposited into a local public bank. If the money used is federal tax dollars instead of federal debt, the incentive would be that residents could keep whatever value was produced through the bank. $2.4 billion, paid back at 4% interest over 30 years—would yield $4.12 billion for the community (or $41,000 per resident, deposited into each participant’s personal bank account). If after the four years, residents are allowed to pay all their federal taxes through the bank, the jobs produced by the initial infusion of money would sustain the bank indefinitely, such that the community would run independently; it would not need the benefit (or burden) of state and local taxation, property or sales taxation, or any other sources of money beyond this publicly owned bank.