Congress certainly has the authority to change the Act if they did so in the first place in 1950. I do not think that they did have the authority to give up their responsibilty if it was un-constitutional in the first place.

One of posters on this thread, 'jhancock' said that quote "creating money isn't spending."

Well, hey buddy! What do you call what the Fed has been doing since 2008? So far they have lent 3 Trillion US dollars and provided some 5.7 Trillion bucks in guarantees on PRIVATE investments.

Definitely illegal according to the Constitution. It is outside of their mandate. How it will play out if we, the tax-payer, tell them to take a flying leap...Beats me!

I support H.R. 1207 that would require the GAO to audit the Fed. It is a start. After that I am sure most Americans will want to get rid of it and control our own money.

I am sorry, I attributed the comment to the wrong poster! I agree with the first comment of jhancock now that I more closely read it. Again apologies! Hope to hear more comments on this thread!

I have been taught the U.S. Constitution mandates ALL spending must be initiated through Congress. If this is correct, then the above cited Act is not constitutional.

There are many that argue the Fed has long been exercising powers it does not have. We shall see how much longer this behavior continues.

(1) Creating money isn't spending. And, technically congress merely controls govt spending and the fed, so the argument goes, isn't really govt.

(2) "The Fed is unconsitutional" argument was lost long ago.