Powell's main point

 At some point the Fed cannot be an agent of taxation without representation. The current contract has a time out, inherent, that prevents this.  At that point is it a contradiction, as the Fed can easily do untaxation without representation.  Otherwise, inherent Due Process kicks that can back to the Senate.  We need a ruling on the right to coin, it is only valid so far as it is updated, by the senate.

Me and Powell are economic advisers to the Antificants, and that is a fairly large political force. We are growing. The Constitution almost demands an update because of the observable conflict in Due Process and Right to Coin.  This is twice in a row, that predicts a legal conflict, and something is at risk. For example, the right for individuals to use digital dollars in shadow banking?  When and where did the individual make the swap in those two rights? These kinds of legal conflicts are quite common, and getting more common. Why are specific money groups hit, asymmetricly, with the Fed taxes and costs of regulations? They bubble up, cause headaches in financial law. Powell wants it stopped.

We cannot vote ourselves out of central banking, so government does the defaulting (and undefaulting). It is in the Law, the risk of not having central banking it greater; that yields a horrendous flood of lawsuits.. The best solution is do central banking better than last time.

For fifteen yeas the Fed's major role is simply to manage Treasuries current cash account, like any other. Except is has the right to restrict defaults as per contracts, and that is a scofflaw cost. All agents support that cost, generally someone bitching in court. Or a new regime elected wailing about cheap money.  This happens about twice, then all parties wait for contract renewal.