This is our New Police force! And how much they give a crap!
Posted on 03/23/2015 4:38:37 PM PDT by amorphous
How can you tell if you’re living in a police state?
The short answer is that you’re living in a police state when everyone becomes a suspected criminal or terrorist. And if the following report is any indicator, then welcome to the Reich.
The Justice Department has ordered bank tellers across America to contact law enforcement if they suspect your cash withdrawal may have something to do with illicit activity. There doesn’t need to be proof, or any sort of red flag indicator – merely suspicion by the bank teller processing your transaction is now enough to have you investigated by authorities.
(Excerpt) Read more at shtfplan.com ...
Cash! That is the big concern. Cashiers Checks are OK. Checks are OK. (They are trackable.)
The new $5k withdrawal limit buys even less.
Never did think it was a good idea.
I have a friend who had the FBI show up at his house after he opened his first bank account and deposited 6 figures in cash. He had a good job, no wife or girlfriend and lived in the house his parents left to him. He paid all his bills with money orders.
This is our New Police force! And how much they give a crap!
Yeah, how DARE he be that self sufficient....it’s just not fair!!!
What did they do to end such an unconstitutional intrusion after gaining control? How many Republicans have spoken out against the Act since 1970?
That's what I thought. Their hands are unclean as well.
your party , the democrat party controlled congress from 1954 to 1994. Now your Obama is finishing the destruction of the USA
Democrat Obama must resign and be impeached and a jailed for his many illegal crimes in which Obama unlawfully went against the will of the people and of Congress: these crimes include
1. Using the FCC to impose Soros’ socialist net neutrality laws on the Internet
2. giving illegals amnesty
3. giving 9 million illegals work permits and SSN’s
4. ordering the IRS to oppress conservatives and Republicans to rig his own re-election election
5. solyndra
6. benghazi
7. laundering hundreds of billion$ to democrat/leftist groups disguised as stimulus
8. obamacare
9. Using the EPA to shut down coal and businesses
a million other crimes , several every day , every single day we hear about many abuses of power , scandals, etc
nobody is putting all this together and calling for Obama’s resignation and impeachment.
you are a democrat. here’s a clue government doesn’t work and is unaccountable.
Good luck with that in Las Vegas.
To # 14:
Knock! Knock! Landshark! (aka IRS, aka Treasury agents)
Never keep any CASH in a bank.
Nothing, you say?
If I had a few thousand to play with, I think I would just keep moving it around between a few banks, just for fun.
The rest of my money I keep in a very safe place and it's not in a bank.
FMCDH(BITS)
Thanks, wrote a check. Guess I am OK
:)
Wow I forgot about that poor kid.
i work for a bank, in IT, and i don’t even deal with customers. i still have to take a training every year on bank secrecy act and acknowledge that i know about Suspicious Activity Report (SAR).
8-1 oz Gold American Eagle coins or 24,390 IMI 5.56 M193 rounds of ammo.
This is not new. Try getting $10k transfered from Poland.
Also, as FReepers read the material in this post, please bear in mind that the ill-conceived 17th Amendment arguably helped to foster today’s unconstitutionally big federal government sticking its big nose into the nation’s banks.
When Constitutional Convention delegate Benjamin Franklin suggested granting Congress the specific power to build canals, canals used to move freight to improve commerce, his fellow delgates thought about it but ultimately rejected the idea. Otherwise, canals would have appeared after mail roads in Clause 7 of Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
But what’s important to this thread concerning banking is this. The delegates decided not to implement Dr. Franklin’s suggestion for canals because they felt that it would give Congress an excuse to establish a national bank and ultimately to regulate banking. This is evidenced by the following excerpt from Thomas Jefferson’s writings.
“A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution [emphasis added].” —Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
In fact, the Supreme Court later clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate commerce.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
And if there’s any question that Congress cannot regulate intrastate banking because it cannot regulate intrastate commerce, then consider the following.
Bank conduct business on the basis of contracts, not commerce (corrections welcome). In fact, the Supremes have not only clarified that such business does not constitute commerce but are contracts, but also that Congress’s Commerce Clause powers do not extend to regulating contracts even if such contracts are negotiated across state borders.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” — Paul v. Virginia, 1869.
Also, I thank Ken H for mentioning the Bank Secrecy Act. I think that the following material might apply to that act.
Both Thomas Jefferson and the Supreme Court have clarified that the Senate cannot use its constitutional power to negotiate treaties as a back to forcing the states to comply with laws which are based on powers which the states have never delegated to the feds expressly via the Constitution.
“In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise.” —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
“Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.” — Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1812 .
Note that Jefferson undoubtedly based his insight to limits of treaty power on his experience as vice president and president of the Senate.
A more important example concerning limits on treaty powers powers comes from the Supreme Court. In fact, the Court reflected on Jefferson’s words, clarifying that Congress cannot use it’s power to negotiate treaties as a backdoor way to expand its constitutionally-limited powers.
"2. Insofar as Art. 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for the military trial of civilian dependents accompanying the armed forces in foreign countries, it cannot be sustained as legislation which is "necessary and proper" to carry out obligations of the United States under international agreements made with those countries, since no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Reid v. Covert, 1956.
So I don’t see where the feds have the constitutional authority to tell banks what to do.
So what am I overlooking?
The problem with the popularly elected Senate is this imo. After low-information citizens vote for their federal senators they go home and watch football, oblivious to the idea that the Senate is doing all kinds of things that it has no constituitonal authority to do.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate [emphasis added] to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear imo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.