Yes, the FED's debt-buying is unconstitutional, but not for the reasons you have alleged.

I honestly looked in vain when I reached your heading "The Heart of the Problem."

Let me illustrate with a very simple yet revealing example:

Let us say that Congress needs to spend another dollar, but it doesn't have another dollar.

So, it walks across the street to the Federal Reserve, and begs for another dollar.

The FED obliges, prints another dollar and loans it to Congress, provided  that Congress agrees to repay the FED that dollar PLUS INTEREST.

After that dollar has finished circulating in the world economy, it is returned to the FED -- repaying the principal.

Now what happens?

The answer is staring us in the face, quite frankly:

The FED still claims the legal right to collect that INTEREST amount from the American economy -- wherever it can find another dollar's worth of assets.

BUT, if you are still reading this, you know that the INTEREST cannot be paid with the original dollar, because that original dollar has already been returned to the FED.

The INTEREST must be paid with some other assets, like bank account balances, levies on payroll checks, stock portfolios, labor, land and so on.

Can you not see how this entire FED scam was designed from the beginning to abolish private property and to convert ownership of all Americans' private assets into the possession and control of the FED's stockholders?

Isn't that one of the key Planks in the Manifesto of Karl Marx?

Now, WHAT IF Congress authorized the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to print that original dollar in the form of a United States Note instead of  a Federal Reserve Note?

Did you catch the obvious omission here? 

RIGHT!! NO INTEREST!!!

Now do you get it?

What you also failed to mention is that the real purpose  of the Federal income tax is to continue collecting the interest payable on all Federal Reserve Notes.

For, they are indeed expressly defined in federal laws as "obligations of the United States" federal government:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/411.html

("The said notes shall be obligations of the United States ....")

But, there are now at least 2 major barriers to any further continuation of IRS collection activities:

(1)  there is no Statute at Large creating a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code:

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm

-and-

(2)  an AUTOMATIC STAY was legally activated when the United States (federal government) formally declared its insolvency as to all obligations payable to the Federal Reserve Banks:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm

Those bankruptcy laws are expressly authorized by the Constitution!

Therefore, for the FED to insist on collecting any more interest payments on the federal government's legal obligations -- known as Federal Reserve Notes -- is a clear and present violation of the U.S. Bankruptcy law at 11 U.S.C. 362:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/11/362.html

Yes, the FED's debt-buying is unconstitutional, but not for the reasons you have alleged.

--

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)