Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Where is (3+ / 0-)

    ANY of this unconstitutional? Please explain. Be specific.  

    It is time to #Occupy Media.

    by lunachickie on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:37:40 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Preamble: All that I comment is meant only to (5+ / 0-)

      reflect my beliefs, not those of the higher courts or of the Supreme Court. I am not a lawyer, and you should not base your choice of representation on my comment.

      It is yet to be decided, but I believe the coin is unconstitutional. It comes down to the precedent that just because a very literal reading of an act of Congress literally permits something does not make it Constitutional. So, if the coin were to be minted, the SC would hear it and, in my opinion, declare it unconstitutional.

      Again, I'm not God, and do not determine future rulings of the SC.

      “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

      by jeff in nyc on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:42:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not a lawyer either (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight, kalihikane, elmo

      but Article I, Section 8 says:

      The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises
      ...
      To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
      ...
      To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
      Congress has that power. Not the Executive Branch. Given that, I really don't get how the trillion-dollar coin even gets out of the starting gate. I'm open to other views, but the more they can reference specific holdings in Constitutional law, the more I'll be open to them.

      Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

      by Nowhere Man on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:44:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Congress passed a law giving a Treasury Secretary (3+ / 0-)

        the right to mint a platinum coin in any denomination he saw fit.  One trillion dollars falls within "any denomination."  So Congress has already authorized this.

        The coin is not spending.  It's a credit limit increase.

        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 12:42:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, but that statute contemplates minting (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          doc2, SpamNunn, Neuroptimalian

          commemorative coins, like the Franklin Mint. Not exactly the same sort of thing as this magic platinum coin you folks are talking about.

          In your diary, you suggest this idea is being seriously considered. Is it being seriously considered by anyone in the Obama administration?

          •  Admittedly,one of the reasons this argument exists (0+ / 0-)

            is that platinum is the only metal that doesn't have the explicit "numismatic object" language attached to it, which (given the way it's written) seems more like an oversight than an attempt to leave open a loophole like this.  I'd have to know more about the legislative history of the statute, but like I said below, that's clearly not its intent.  Then it comes down to differing legal philosophies about whether intent matters in plain readings of the text.  The people defending the legality of the trillion-dollar coin do have the strict language of the text to back them up.

            But I think the damage it does to Congress' clear constitutional jurisdiction is enough to weigh heavily on the intent over language side of things.  It's never been a problem because - until recently - no one had ever interpreted the statute to give this much power to the executive branch.

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

            by pico on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:09:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You'd find reading up on contemporary theories (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              radical simplicity

              of legal interpretation to be fascinating reading, pico -- some of the most fun I had in law school.  (And no, that is not a sad statement.)  Scalia, for one, abjures use of legislative history for statutes.  This wouldn't expand current thinking on the area so long as the Treasury Secretary agreed with the interpretation.

              Damage done to Congress's reputation?  I think that that ship has sailed.

              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 03:36:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, for what it's worth (0+ / 0-)

                Scalia was on the losing end of Clinton v. New York (versus Ginsburg, Thomas, and Kennedy).

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

                by pico on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:41:42 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't recall, was that a case that hinged on (0+ / 0-)

                  the use of legislative history for statutory interpretation?  I doubt it.  He really, really hates it, on various grounds.

                  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 Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:54:44 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not a member of the Obama Administration (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            radical simplicity

            so I can't really say.  I will say that there are only two ways that I know of for Obama to unilaterally satisfy his pledge that there won't be another debt ceiling crisis: this and the "bare 14th Amendment" argument that Armando has made.  So either his pledge is inoperative, or I'm missing something that everyone else has also missed, or one or both of those must be under consideration.

            "Headings" aren't designed to be used in statutory construction.  And who's to say that this isn't a commemorative coin?  If we sell it for a trillion dollars, that will be used to pay down the debt directly.  (No commission to the Franklin Mint, though!)

            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 03:34:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  As I wrote to you below (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            radical simplicity

            It's just about coins.  Subsection (k) is no more part of subsection (e) than it is part of subsection (a).  That it describes only commemorative coins is your insertion into the statutory scheme.  It's not there.

            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 03:56:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site