well, according to the Slate article Jim posted in the other thread: "The United States has a statutory limit on the amount of paper money in circulation, but no such limit on coins. The Treasury secretary has the authority to mint certain coins of any denomination, with no need for the value of the metal to equal the value of the coin."
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Marv Gandall <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2011-07-30, at 6:26 PM, Jeffrey Fisher wrote: > > > i thought the law does distinguish between paper money and coins, and > that's why the coin. > > > > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 5:19 PM, socialismorbarbarism < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, yes, I get all that. What I don't understand is: Why a *coin*? > > Why, in the absence of a law specifically banning the issuance of > > paper, is this necessary? Why not paper? > > Could it be because the Constitution is explicit on the authority of the > federal government to mint coins, but is silent on paper, which was left to > the Supreme Court to decide? In the latter part of the 19th century, the > court first ruled that fiat currency was not legal tender, than reversed > itself, ruling that the authority to issue paper was implicit in the right > to issue coin. > > If I were the administration, I'm not sure I'd want to take my chances with > the Roberts Court, although strict constitutionalists like Robert Bork have > scoffed at the idea that a court of any political stripe would in the 21st > century outlaw the circulation of paper money. > > In any event, it would be totally, wholly, unalterably, immutably out of > character for this administration to mint a trillion dollar coin or even to > use the authority of the 14th amendment to smash the debt ceiling. > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
