It isn't prohibited by the constitution and was created as an independent body. You are correct that it wasn't specifically outlined by the constitution but that's an empty statement - the constitution included the allowance of the creation of agencies and laws outside of itself... that's the main power and strength of the constitution.
Your statement was equivalent to saying that Hacker News has no constitutional right to exist - it is equally vapid.
The 10th amendment limits the federal government to the enumerated powers. So your argument that it "isn't prohibited" isn't how this works. You have to justify it under an enumerated power (which, you might well be able to do, though this is debatable).
I am not a constitutional scholar so a better expert may be able to provide a more sound response but I believe the Commerce Clause is generally accepted to include currency control (and early tests of federalism in the US found that independent state currencies could be restricted by the federal government).
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
...
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
...
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Congress's authority in this area was upheld by the foundational case McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819. The Federal Reserve System was created in 1913 by Congress via the Federal Reserve Act.
There's no serious argument that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional. People who espouse this are ignorant of the facts and law, or are either quacks or have paid heed to the arguments are quacks.
There's no serious argument that a central bank is unconstitutional facially
is not the same as
There's no serious argument that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional as applied.
The latter is certainly debatable, especially insofar as the fed (in their own words) claims to operate independently when in fact the constitution delegates the powers you cited to congress and the execution of powers of congress to the executive.
Only by conspiracy nuts and the latest incarnation of reactionaries who espouse an imperial presidency. Im sure there is a gold & crypto grift in play as well.
The president appoints the board. The board has a clear charter mandated by congress. It’s a common, functional and well accepted governance methodology.
The point of having a long tenured Federal Reserve board is similar to why Senators have long terms. You don’t want a failing presidency to compel politically expedient actions that damage the nation.
We formed the federal reserve because of the long history of disastrous political interventions and responses in the 19th century, most notable the Andrew Jackson’s (a DJT favorite) panic of 1837 (and Van Buren’s bungled responses, Grant’s Panic of 1873 and Grover Cleveland’s panic of 1893.
The madmen calling the shots here are well aware of this and are purposefully trying to drive the US and world economy off a cliff, which will enrich themselves and their patrons.
It’s certainly government. The US Congress created it as an agency of the US government, just as it did every other government agency; and the Congress can destroy it. The Congress did not provide for direct political control—elections (and electoral politics) can’t change the Federal Reserve’s decisions (or decision-makers) directly.
There’s indirect control: the elected administration selects people to nominate as governors, who then go on to make the decisions. But they have to choose people who the (elected) Senate will confirm, and there’s not too much the executive can do if they don’t like the decisions their appointed governors go on to make during their 14-year terms.
The question at hand at the moment is whether the executive can unilaterally usurp the agency’s Congressionally-mandated structure and use its power directly.
It’s kind of like how the various Civil Service acts sheltered career civil servants from the constant changes in political winds, so that we can have career professionals in government instead of using public paychecks purely as a prize for the buddies of whoever won the last election. The present administration resents that independence too.
I’d argue that its primary functions are core government functions in a way that passenger rail and postal services are not. Amtrak and USPS sell services at retail (and compete; see i.e. SunRail and UPS). The public aspect of their prerogative is relatively small (I tend to care much more about whether the train is on time than I do who operates, and who owns the tracks, and what the liability cap is; I tend to care about speed and price more often than I care that USPS will go places where FedEx won’t). And the “product” is a set of individual services executed by a big workforce—the higher-ups exist to make sure the services get delivered down the line. Quasi-corporate structures make a lot of sense for that.
Whereas the Fed’s jobs involve setting monetary policy and regulating the financial sector. The “product” is the set of policies the board vote to implement, and the staff exist to gather information and pass it upward to support those decisions (maybe using powers delegated downward to them). Like any other government agency.
What does it mean that the Federal Reserve is "independent within the government"?
The Federal Reserve, like many other central banks, is an independent government agency
The federal reserve calls themselves "within the government" and a government agency. Isn't it fraud (and indeed wire fraud) to falsely represent yourself as a government agency to induce a financial transaction?
Your position is they're not government, but you also talk of them "doing whatever the fed needs to do the job" in response to the fed claiming to be a government agency and within government.
So either you are lying, or the fed is lying, and if the latter your position is that they need to lie to do their job (per your dismissive quip) -- much of which involves transactions of banks drawing on master accounts which are held in part in full faith that they are doing business with a government agency.
If you go by the default constitutional allocations, Congress starts with much tighter control of how the executive operates than it does now. Via passage of laws, Congress over the years has chosen to delegate a lot of responsibility to the executive branch - some for pragmatic management reasons, but some as a trend of historic concentration of power towards the executive. Congress can also delegate to non exec branch bodies like the Fed and other quasi-govermental orgs. Congress has the constitutional purview to take back a lot of that power into it's direct hands instead of allocating it to other bodies if it so chose.
> Via passage of laws, Congress over the years has chosen to delegate a lot of responsibility to the executive branch
Part of the reason for this is that 2-year presidents are more common, they make promises within the first two years and even if they meet them, it can take years for effects to be seen in the general population, so the party loses majority in the midterms and then nothing happens politically for the remaining two years. Congress is often slow and burdensome (for good reason) but it always makes out for a disenfranchised voter base
Your statement was equivalent to saying that Hacker News has no constitutional right to exist - it is equally vapid.