The referenced article seems to gloss over several unconstitutional things about the constitutionally undefined Federal Reserve and so-called federal banking regulations.
First, Thomas Jefferson had clarified that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) had decided not to expressly constitutionally give Congress the specific power to regulate INTRAstate banking.
"It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. 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." —Thomas jefferson, Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, 1791.
Next, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had given Congress the express constitutional power to regulate the value of money whether Congress wants that power or not.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof [emphasis added], and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
A related point concerning Congress's power to regulate value of money is this. Noting that ordinary legal voting citizens have aways had the specific power to elect representatives, when Congress unconstitutionally surrendered its power to regulate value of money to the constitutionally undefined, third party Federal Reserve, the following happened.
By doing so, Congress wrongly weakened the voting power of ordinary citizens to indirectly control value of money through their elected representatives.
Next, since Con-Con delegates were aware of problems with regulating the value of paper money, another significant observation about Clause 5 is that it expressly authorizes Congress to make only coin money since there is no mention of paper money in that clause.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: To coin Money [emphasis added], regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
But under the 10th Amendment (10A), the states could still use paper money as legal tender, right?
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States [hint; emphasis added], are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
W R O N G !
Con-Con delegates had also included a constitutional provision prohibiting the states from making paper money regardless of their 10A powers.
"Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts [emphases added]; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
Corrections, insights welcome.
#53