Idk if this helps, but here's some stuff I wrote over a decade ago about how the Federal Reserve is unlawful on its face. Hope it helps:
It was the four dissenting justices in the case that I think had their heads out of their…I mean, occupied the true moral high ground. In his opinion, Justice McReynolds upheld the conclusion to which I in my juris-ignorance long ago leapt, namely that this was clearly an out-and-out fleecing of the American people by their government. He began the scathing minority opinion gently enough: “I conclude that, if given effect, the enactments here challenged will bring about confiscation of property rights and repudiation of national obligation.” He proceeded from there to call a spade a spade: “Just men regard repudiation and spoliation [spoliation?] of citizens by their sovereign with abhorrence; but we are asked to affirm that the Constitution has granted power to accomplish both.” Then he took a Tommy gun to the ridiculous argument that the 1917 Congress had restricted the 73rd Congress’ lawful right to regulate the value of money: “The fundamental problem”, he said, was to determine whether Congress’ passage of HJR 192 [among other New Deal legislation] was “designed to attain a legitimate end” or whether “under the guise of pursuing a monetary policy,” Congress really had “inaugurated a plan primarily designed to destroy private obligations, repudiate national debts, and drive into the Treasury all gold within the country in exchange for inconvertible promises to pay, of much less value.”
Final Jeopardy music, please: Duh duh duh duh duh duh duh…Dum dum dum dum…Dumb!…Dumb!…Dumb!
After several pages of scientific notation and deliberation on his slide rule, oh, and considering all the circumstances, Justice McReynolds and his fellow dissenters could only “…conclude they show that the plan disclosed is of the latter description, and its enforcement would deprive the parties before us of their rights under the Constitution.”
DING! DING! DING! What do we have for ‘im, Johnny?
I’m not disparaging Justice McReynolds here by any means. After all, as I said, he and the other three dissenting justices were the only ones truly speaking for the people that day, but I’m no rocket scientist and it didn’t take me long to figure out where Ursa took a major squat in the buckwheat!
Personally, I think that Mr. Perry would have been more successful in obtaining a favorable verdict had he brought suit instead on the basis of Roosevelt’s unconstitutional regulation of the value of the gold dollar in Proclamation #2072, which power was given only to Congress in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. After all, the Court had long established that Congress had no right to delegate its constitutionally derived powers, even if it wanted to. In fact, just over a month before the Perry decision Justice Hughes himself, in his majority opinion in Panama Refining Company v. Ryan (293 U.S. 388) had reiterated the fact that Congress “manifestly is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is…vested” and in said opinion restated the emphatic determination made by the Court back in 1892 in Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark (143 U. S. 649) that the principle of Congress not being allowed to delegate its authority under the Constitution was “universally recognized as vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the constitution.”