Court cases are never reflected in the code. Do you see anything about the court cases we already discussed in the code? http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411. Nothing! Because the code never reflects court cases!
This is so simple to understand and yet you keep repeating that court cases are reflected in the code. They aren't! The code reflects the statutes congress passed; court decisions are entirely separate things--the code isn't edited to incorporate them!
You have not. Where? You showed neither! I keep begging you to tell me where the code says anything about it and you can't! And for a single court case, and you can't give it!
The collateralization of the notes is entirely distinct from the question of whether the notes are redeemable for the collateral. Your assertion is that the notes are redeemable for the collateral, which the code doesn't say. You can say the Fed's FAQ question reflects the code all you want, but where's the reflection at? You can't point me to the code that says it because it doesn't exist!
Along with previously issued currency, not the securities you're trying to argue about. Show me in the case where it says anything about those securities! You cannot!
I told you at the very beginning of this discussion that your dictionary definitions were going to get you into trouble. During the Civil War, the United States issued a currency called United States Notes. These were issued until 1971, and then issuance ceased. People who still have these United States Notes can redeem them for Federal Reserve Notes, as per the statute you found on redemption of United States Notes. The secretary then destroys the United States Notes--they don't have any sitting around.
Now, there's also a treasury security called a "note" that's presently issued by the United States treasury (treasury bill = matures in 1 year or less; treasury note = matures in 2-10 years; treasury bond = matures in more than 10 years). They take your money and give you a note for it, paying you interest and principal back. This is not the "United States Note" that was in your old currency redemption statute, it's an entirely different thing. You didn't buy United States Notes from the government and get something back for them; you buy a treasury note from the treasury, handing it $100 in Federal Reserve Notes in exchange for the treasury note, which is later paid back with $100 in Federal Reserve Notes. Of course, you said a note is a note is a note, following your dictionary, so you declared that they were the same thing.
The treasury note that would constitute collateral for Federal Reserve Notes is not a United States Note. United States Notes are indeed lawful money, but treasury notes are not United States Notes.
How is the deficit an example of people redeeming Federal Reserve Notes? The deficit represents money the government borrowed from the existing economy or got from the Fed. You buy treasury securities, you don't redeem your Federal Reserve Notes for them. The redemption provision you cited has absolutely nothing to do with treasury securities.
