Alright, let's go with Congress sticking to printing money only (Congress actually has more economic powers than that but since you don't know them/didnt mention them, we'll just roll with that).
1. The Fed is a government institution with private elements created in the 1910s. Therefore, is part of the government regulation of the economy. As such, your friend Ron Paul opposes this.
2. The SEC, which is responsible for monitoring Wall Street for insider trading as well as the reckless business practices that led to the collapse of the economy in the 30s, is a government institution which regulates the economy. Therefore, Ron Paul opposes this.
3. The FDIC, responsible for insuring your money in the bank, is a government institution. Ron Paul opposes.
4. Bank holidays, authorized by the federal government, is an example of government regulation. So is authorizing banks to close to prevent banks from collapsing in the event of a paniced run.
So, in the event of a President Paul, we'll have insider trading on Wall Street, people buying their stocks on-margin, and banks becoming essentially worthless in the event of something going wrong--which may happen in the next few years.
So, thanks to President Hoover/Paul, the US economy is now ****ed.
Times have changed. The Constitution still works as the supreme law, but we've had to make some changes. Reverting back to what you're suggesting is the exact problem with libertarianism and ultra-conservatism--they're impractical.
