Skip to main content

View Diary: Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe: The coin would be perfectly legal (74 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Anyone who thinks congressional intent ... (0+ / 0-)

    is EVER irrelevant will (properly) find himself on the losing side of a SCOTUS decision, and every lower court's decision preceding it.  Even the suggestion of such a thing is preposterous, and for a legal "scholar" to do so is absolute confirmation of his entry into a stage of dementia demanding retirement before he further embarrasses the institution by which he is employed.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

    by Neuroptimalian on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:27:12 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Uh-huh (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miggles, quill, MPociask, whaddaya

      Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

      by blue aardvark on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:20:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You are mistaken (10+ / 0-)

      Tribe is a widely-respected legal scholar.  I'm not, but I spent most of my free time 2000-2010 studying and applying Federal administrative law as part of a mostly unsuccessful -- but very educational -- effort to get some arcane FCC rules changed.  

      I found that a lot of legal "common knowledge" I took for granted is false, and that goes here.  Tribe's the expert, not me, but more than ten years of careful study convince he's exactly on target:

      1. The statute is clear and unambiguous.  Long and strong precedent forbids any court -- even SCOTUS -- from delving into legislative intent in the face of an unambiguous statute.  This one is as straigtforward as they get.  Read it.

      2. Standing.  You can't get get into court to challenge administrative actions unless you can show actual or imminent material harm to yourself that is distinct from what the population at large would suffer.  No matter how loud the tantrums that the American Enterprise Institute and their buddies throw about inflation or Weimar or Zimbabwe, they cannot clear this bar.  Even if they could prove to a court's satisfaction that they will be injured, how would their injury be different from yours or mine (except for size, of course)?  Aside from constitutional questions, administrative actions that affect everyone more or less the same are political -- not legal -- questions, and the courts leave those issues to the other two branches.

      This story did not say whether Tribe raised the issue of constitutionality of Congress' delegation of this power to the administration.  However, Congress has for decades chosen not actively oversee the quantity of US dollars created by the private actors (commercial banks and the Fed) to whom it has long delegated the creation of most US money (i.e., computer accounting entries; banknotes and coins are presently a small fraction of the total).  

      With this history, the only "preposterous" holding would be that it is unconstitutional for Congress to delegate the same power to our elected Chief Executive that it has for years bestowed upon private, profit-making banks that operate exclusively in their own interest.

      Of course, the Roberts court is the most activist, legislating-from-the-bench SCOTUS in US history.  Maybe they could violate these two extremely fundamental doctrines, but that would be even more legally preposterous than Bush v. Gore or Citizens United.

      •  One further point - "intent" as it relates to (8+ / 0-)

        a Congressional Bill, is embodied within the Congressional Record to the extent that it is not embedded within the language of the Bill.  (I have not looked but) If this particular point of the law was not discussed during the process of passing the Bill, there IS no additional intent, and any court would absolutely defer to whatever the plain meaning of the Bill's language is.

      •  It would be amazing for them to reach out (0+ / 0-)

        and spike this one -- but with this Court who knows?

        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 02:20:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You said that with such conviction! (0+ / 0-)

      And yet, you say it with so little relevant knowledge.  If you have the capacity to be embarrassed, now would be a good time for it.

      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 02:19:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site