Skip to main content

View Diary: That Platinum Coin Idea Was Incubated on Daily Kos (242 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Nope but if you're going to ridicule it, you'd... (5+ / 0-)

    better be prepared to back it up with specific arguments. The proponents of the idea have detailed why they think it's viable. Now Krugman has jumped on the bandwagon so I suppose you think he's a fool too.

    And no, the coin is not an "essential element of monetary theory" but it's utility derives from MMT as well as how our financial system is set up.

    Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

    by Ian S on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:23:26 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  All the proponents have said is (4+ / 0-)

      that it may technically work. I haven't heard anybody prominent say that it isn't a stupid idea. Krugman himself said of the "idea"

      These things sound ridiculous — but so is the behavior of Congressional Republicans. So why not fight back using legal tricks?
      So Krugman thinks it is ridiculous, and a trick. The only difference between he and I is that he thinks it actually would hold up in court, and I don't. Keep in mind, Nobel Prize in Economics or not, Krugman is not all-knowing about everything; he may actually be human with the possibility of being wrong about something once in a while.
      •  Please explain (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TealTerror, Sandino, Seneca Doane

        on what grounds this isn't constitutional.

        It is time to #Occupy Media.

        by lunachickie on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:54:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's clear from reading the statute that (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandino, ConfusedSkyes, elmo

          the ability to coin and choose the denomination for platinum coins was given for purely administrative purposes to handle numismatic objects (e.g. commemorative coins); that's clear to me, at least, from context.  Congress alone has power to set monetary policy, and it can't - even by a legislative act of its own - abdicate that power.

          The reason no one's sued the executive branch for, say, making a 2-dollar commemorative gold coin not explicitly authorized by Congress is that 2-dollar commemorative gold coins have no particular effect on the U.S. economy, and Congress is fine with letting the Treasury handle that.  In a case like this, you could try to argue strict letter of the law, but it's so clearly in violation of the purpose of the law that I don't see how it stands.

          Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

          by pico on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:24:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Perhaps you missed this diary (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Seneca Doane

            When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

            by Egalitare on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:01:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You know there's a difference between (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ConfusedSkyes

              "violation of intended purpose of the law" and "violation that violates the principles established in the constitution", right?    

              This is Clinton v. City of New York territory.  Congress can't turn over a clearly-defined power that ends up upsetting the fundamental divisions of government.  As I said in my comment, nobody cares when it's a 2 dollar commemorative coin, but the courts won't allow that statute to be used to trump Congress' monetary powers, even if it was Congress that passed it in the first place.

              Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

              by pico on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:07:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It doesn't upset the fundamental divisions of govt (0+ / 0-)

                Congress controls coinage.  Congress said "you can coin this."  The Executive says "OK, then we're gonna."  Congress says "oops, that's not what we meant?  Then they can repeal the law.  This is not what we call a "scriviner's error."

                Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

                "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
                -- Saul Alinsky

                by Seneca Doane on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:44:07 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  But how is that different from (0+ / 0-)

                  what happened in Clinton?  Congress controls legislative acts.  Congress said "you can line-item veto this".  The Executive said, "OK, then I'm gonna."  Congress says, "oops, that didn't work out the way we expected."

                  The Court stepped in, and the majority didn't even rely on the balance of powers argument per se: they argued that legislative acts are the sole province of Congress, and that - even though this isn't what the law intended - the line-item veto in substance allows the president to sign a bill in a form that was never passed by Congress.   I don't see how that is markedly different from this law, which hands over a specifically enumerated Article 1 power to the Executive, and one that allows him to circumvent Congress' laws regarding the debt.

                  The one thing that'd protect the Treasury in this case isn't statutory deference, but the difficulty of anyone getting standing to challenge it.

                  Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

                  by pico on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:51:44 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's a great question (0+ / 0-)

                    The difference is sort of a matter of form vs. content.

                    In Clinton, it was the very form of the procedure that was constitutionally offensive.  Congress approves Statute A, containing provisions A1-A99, and the President signs it while vetoing provisions A51-A60 -- without which we don't know that the bill would have passed both houses in the first place!  Is this one law, composed of A1-A50 and A61-A99, or is it two laws -- the enactment of A1-A99 followed by the repeal of A51-A60?

                    It's two laws.  Congress only passed and presented one law, composed A1-A99, through its legislative process and presented that to the President.  The repeal of A51-A60 is a second law -- one that originates with and ends with Presidential action.  In it's very form, it's not Constitutionally permissible.

                    That's wise, too.  Otherwise -- prepare for a reduction ad absurdum -- we could have a dictatorship.  A Congress of the President's party could say "we hereby enact everything we could possibly do -- and we'll let the President choose which of it he'd like to veto."  The President could then do whatever he or she likes, without any input from the legislative branch (or through it the electorate other than his or her own election), so long as it was not prohibited by the constitution.

                    The platinum coin law, on the other hand, is a much less dangerous matter of content.  There's no question but that the law used a proper form.  It's content was -- and this is being generous to your position -- ambiguous.  (In fact, I don't consider it ambiguous: its statement is plain.)  We have processes to deal with that.  We can pass a clarifying law; failing that, the first interpretation is made by the federal agency head charged with enforcing the law.  That's uncontroversial.  Then, so long as the agency makes a reasonable and constitutionally permissible interpretation of the content of the law, even if it's not the one that the reviewing court would have chosen had it had the first shot at it, the court is supposed to defer to the agency determination.

                    This law is in proper form.  It's an exercise of one of Congress's enumerated powers, presented to and signed by the President.  It's not really even a difficult case.  If the Secretary of the Treasury says it's kosher, the court defers.

                    Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

                    "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
                    -- Saul Alinsky

                    by Seneca Doane on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 02:17:08 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  That is, in the first instance, the determination (0+ / 0-)

            of the Treasury Secretary to make -- and the courts are instructed to defer to any reasonable interpretation of the statute.  "Clear to you" doesn't matter.

            Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

            "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
            -- Saul Alinsky

            by Seneca Doane on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:08:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  See my reply above. (4+ / 0-)

              Reread Kennedy's concurrence to Clinton v. New York.   The court's not going to consider an undercutting of Congress' ability to set a debt ceiling as a mere "statutory interpretation", no matter how reasonable you think it is.

              Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

              by pico on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:18:47 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It actually doesn't afford ambiguity (0+ / 0-)

                "Of any denomination" means just that.  But fine, let it go to court.  Let the court say "OK, now you must cut all of this spending because the Republicans are being assholes."  Bring it on.

                Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

                "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
                -- Saul Alinsky

                by Seneca Doane on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:45:37 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site