6 ms·

The laws that allow a platinum coin of arbitrary nominal value have already been created. Paper money, and all other coin metals, have their denominations defin

The laws that allow a platinum coin of arbitrary nominal value have already been created. Paper money, and all other coin metals, have their denominations defined. It's basically a bureaucratic loophole.

zinekeller 5y ago
This is correct. Minting a platinum coin with any and unlimited value is already set in law just after the Great Depression, so the executive branch can do it alone. Anything else, including creating a new denomination in notepaper or other metals (or its alloys), needs the involvement of the legislature (power of the purse, power to... legislate), which right now... is in a deadlock. I won't be shocked if this coin has been stamped there would be a court challenge, especially in terms of the said law's constitutionality. (Edited because despite having "Depression" in my mind I still typed "Recession". The law was from the last century, not this century.)
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  Congress has delegated lots of its powers to the executive's bureaucratic apparatus, so I'm not sure why this would be any different.
  - zinekeller 5y ago
    I mean, controversial but (ultimately confirmed) constitutional laws has a tendency to be challenged anyway, especially when the person who disagrees is in the government. This is not specific to this law, but instead just a general commentary on who brings cases to the court. Specifically to this case though, they might argue it's violating the so-called "power of the purse", which constitutionally is solely given to the Houses. I'm not sure if it will be enough (given common-law precedent), but I won't be shocked if someone will use this argument.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      > Specifically to this case though, they might argue it's violating the so-called "power of the purse", which constitutionally is solely given to the Houses. Unlikely to work. The Appropriations Clause gives Congress control over spending; the debt ceiling only affects money that's already spent per Congressional appropriation.
  - syshum 5y ago
    Because the current make up of the court, as well recent rulings seems to indicate that the Supreme Court is willing to start looking at limiting the ability of Congress is just hand wave is responsibility of making defined laws away to the executive branch like they have been prone to do for the last few decades. Congress needs to legislate not just demand the executive / Administrative state do all the things.
- andrewla 5y ago
  No, it was from 1997 [1], not the Great Depression. It was intended to allow the minting of smaller denomination coins, but did not specify that in the text, so a textual reading will not forbid this usage. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/3610/text#:~:text=The%20Secretary%20may%20mint%20and%20issue%20bullion%20and%20proof%20platinum%20%0Acoins%20in%20accordance%20with%20such%20specifications%2C%20designs%2C%20varieties%2C%20%0Aquantities%2C%20denominations%2C%20and%20inscriptions%20as%20the%20Secretary https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/3610...

zinekeller 5y ago

This is correct. Minting a platinum coin with any and unlimited value is already set in law just after the Great Depression, so the executive branch can do it alone. Anything else, including creating a new denomination in notepaper or other metals (or its alloys), needs the involvement of the legislature (power of the purse, power to... legislate), which right now... is in a deadlock. I won't be shocked if this coin has been stamped there would be a court challenge, especially in terms of the said law's constitutionality. (Edited because despite having "Depression" in my mind I still typed "Recession". The law was from the last century, not this century.)

jonnycomputer 5y ago
Congress has delegated lots of its powers to the executive's bureaucratic apparatus, so I'm not sure why this would be any different.
- zinekeller 5y ago
  I mean, controversial but (ultimately confirmed) constitutional laws has a tendency to be challenged anyway, especially when the person who disagrees is in the government. This is not specific to this law, but instead just a general commentary on who brings cases to the court. Specifically to this case though, they might argue it's violating the so-called "power of the purse", which constitutionally is solely given to the Houses. I'm not sure if it will be enough (given common-law precedent), but I won't be shocked if someone will use this argument.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > Specifically to this case though, they might argue it's violating the so-called "power of the purse", which constitutionally is solely given to the Houses. Unlikely to work. The Appropriations Clause gives Congress control over spending; the debt ceiling only affects money that's already spent per Congressional appropriation.
- syshum 5y ago
  Because the current make up of the court, as well recent rulings seems to indicate that the Supreme Court is willing to start looking at limiting the ability of Congress is just hand wave is responsibility of making defined laws away to the executive branch like they have been prone to do for the last few decades. Congress needs to legislate not just demand the executive / Administrative state do all the things.
andrewla 5y ago
No, it was from 1997 [1], not the Great Depression. It was intended to allow the minting of smaller denomination coins, but did not specify that in the text, so a textual reading will not forbid this usage. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/3610/text#:~:text=The%20Secretary%20may%20mint%20and%20issue%20bullion%20and%20proof%20platinum%20%0Acoins%20in%20accordance%20with%20such%20specifications%2C%20designs%2C%20varieties%2C%20%0Aquantities%2C%20denominations%2C%20and%20inscriptions%20as%20the%20Secretary https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/3610...