The Federal Reserve is a Private Bank, owned by commercial banks. It is a private corporation. It pays dividends to it's owners, which are the largest commercial banks, both foreign and domestic. Don't take my word for it, just do a Google search, or go to the Federal Reserve's website.

Fiat monetary systems are not free market based, if they were, they wouldn't rely on "legal tender" laws for their existence. If we suddenly ended the fed, and used real money, such as gold or silver for commerce and storing our wealth, we the people would be a whole lot better off. This is why the powers that be fight it tooth and nail. You have the bankers who produce nothing, yet own virtually everything who would immediately loose their grip on our economy and nation.

Ever wonder why everyone in the country, the government, and companies included all simultaneously owe money to banks? Shouldn't we owe debts to each other? Everyone owes the bank, yet the bank is the one party to a transaction that contributed nothing.

You have to really think about the banks role & investigate how money is created by banks. Most people think banks lend out saver's deposits. This is not true. Savings account deposits are NEVER lent out. They are the basis by which a bank determines how much fiat money they can create. If banks lent out some of their savings deposits, they would be able to create less money, and earn less in interest. The gearing is supposed to be 10 to 1, but in reality, it's much higher.

If money is going to be printed out of nothing… why doesn't Congress do it? Why have a middle man? There is no reason, other than malicious intent to rip off a nation.

You write that paying for goods/services in OK with NV Gold Certificates becomes interstate commerce and "violates Article 1, Section 8." One cannot "violate" art.1, sec. 8. The article simply says that Congress has the power to 'regulate commerce among the several states.' It doesn't say that any trade between or among citizens of different states is unlawful and punishable as some kind of crime.

I suspect what you mean to say is that Congress would likely attempt to regulate such transactions and perhaps prohibit them. While this seems likely to me, too, it's important to understand that Art. 1, sec. 8 does not prevent States from doing this.

Rather, it is Art. 1, sec. 10 that specifically prohibits states from coining money but also expressly refers to the States' ability to make gold or silver coins legal tender. That is why the model 'Constitutional Tender' legislation referred to in the article is drafted as it is.

Your argument that no state "has tried to issue currency of any kind since the Civil War" is irrelevant. You might as well argue that people should not try anything that's never been tried before.

Or perhaps, your argument is that the Civil War somehow determined that States cannot make gold or silver coins legal tender, despite the plain wording in the Constitution. If that's your argument, it is simply wrong.

Your point that the Fed is not a Central Bank seems to be nit-picking with no point. In fact, the author of the article writes the following early on:

"What is astounding about our current situation is the continued willingness of Congress to take one of the highest powers granted them in the Constitution and surrenders it to the private Federal Reserve."

So, it's apparent the author realizes the Fed is a private institution. The simple fact is that the Fed acts much like a typical Central Bank and that is really the point.

Further, as others have noted, Nixon did not take us off the "Silver Standard." It's hard to know where that misconception even came from, but it shows you don't have an accurate understanding of the history of fiat money in America.

The only thing that is guaranteed to "not work" is to do nothing. It's apparent to me that the author of this article is trying to move America away from the unconstitutional Fed by using the powers the States have to make gold or silver legal tender. That's a pretty darn good idea IMHO and I'm VERY willing to look at anything that will kill the Fed.

Rather than grousing that it won't work, I'd rather look at his proposal and give it a chance. Anything we can do to peacefully move us away from the current mess deserves fair consideration.

Also, on your 2 points:
1. The Fed is not really private. How many private institutions need to be created with an act of congress? How many private institutions have their chairmen appointed by the president? Though they act like they don't answer to Congress, Congress can revoke their charter anytime they want, just like with the previous central banks (it won't happen though, sadly). Also, the fact remains that the power of currency belongs to Congress under the constitution, not the federal reserve. The constitution never gave congress the authority to charter any organization, period, let alone one with that power. So yes, the Fed was authorized by Congress to handle the money supply, but not by the Constitution: our money is illegal.
2. Nixon closed the gold window. Americans couldn't own gold legally, but foreigners could trade dollars for gold. The dollar was still backed by gold at the time. But other countries figured out that we printed more dollars than there was gold, so there was a run on our supply. Basically, we defaulted. But instead of being honest about it, he closed the window, took us off the standard and said "We're all keynesians now."

This wouldn't work for various reasons. Nuff said.