And Yet, Laurence Tribe Is Wrong On The Trillion Dollar Coin

Paul Krugman is delighted to see Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe declare the Trillion Dollar coin to be legal.

It's interesting to see the left wing echo chamber in action, but since Prof. Tribe didn't do his homework he got the wrong answer.

Kevin Drum, a lonely lefty on this topic, pointed the way to the answer yesterday - the key is the meaning of "bullion coin" in the controversial language of the law:

(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion, may prescribe from time to time.

People like Prof. Tribe are focusing on the Treasury Secretary's discretion in setting denominations without worrying that the phrase "bullion coin" might actually have meaning. Here we go, from the US Mint:

A bullion coin is a coin that is valued by its weight in a specific precious metal. Unlike commemorative or numismatic coins valued by limited mintage, rarity, condition and age, bullion coins are purchased by investors seeking a simple and tangible means to own and invest in the gold, silver, and platinum markets.

Well, that is the common, widely understood definition. Do words lose their meaning when Congress puts them in a law? Probably not. And that might be why people who read the law and know what the words mean realize we are talking about one large coin.

With gold, silver and palladium coins Congress specified that the sales price must be the bullion value plus a premium to cover striking and marketing costs. That language was dropped for platinum, leaving the phrase "bullion coin" to carry the meaning. We hope it is up to the challenge!

Well. On one side is Congressional intent (as illustrated by the first draft of the bill), historic practice, and the conventional meaning of the phrase "bullion coin". On the other side is a burning desire to slide past the debt ceiling. Treasury lawyers will never sign off on the sale of this coin; even if they do, Fed lawyers will never sign off on the Fed purchase.

And lest anyone hope to hang their Trillion Dollar hat on the phrase "proof coin", that won't work either - a 'proof coin' in this context is an enhanced version of the bullion coin. From the Mint glossary:

Proof: a specially produced coin made from highly polished planchets and dies and often struck more than once to accent the design.  Proof coins receive the highest quality strike possible and can be distinguished by their sharpness of detail and brilliant, mirror-like surface.

[Or let me cite this handy defintion from "The Coin Site":

Proof Coins are specially made examples of regular issue coins historically used as gifts or for presentation.]

More on the history of proof coins issued in the US here. The gist - as best I can tell (but I have only paged through two books at the library and do not claim to be a numismatist), there are examples of conventional coins being struck without accompanying proof versions for collectors, but there are no examples of proof coins being struck for which there is no conventional circulating, commemorative or bullion counterpart. So more than two hundred years of Mint history and practice is consistent with the defintion provided above.]

My suggestion is that Prof. Tribe ask one of his students to take ten minutes to study this. Then we will get an answer that reflects the language used in the law.

LEGAL ADVICE FROM JON ADLER: Prof. Adler of the Volokh Conspiracy likes the bullion coins argument (in an update to his post) but thinks I am waving my hands on the "proof coins" concept. Well, halfway home is well begun!

At CNBC, a former mint director (Edmund Moy was the 38th director of the United States Mint, serving under Presidents Bush and Obama) makes the bullion coin argument then also waves his hands when he comes to proof coins. Troubling...

First, it may be legal to mint a platinum bullion coin with a $1 trillion face value, but it's not legal to pass it off as actually worth $1 trillion if there isn't $1 trillion of platinum in it. That's because it's a bullion coin and not a legal circulating coin.

...Third, the current law does allow the Mint to make a platinum proof coin and does not specify whether this applies to a bullion coin or a circulating coin. A proof coin refers to a mirror-like finish and is made for coin collectors. However, a proof coin must be accepted at face value. Some have argued that the law can be stretched to allow for a platinum circulating coin, but this would not be consistent with the intent of the original legislation.

I think we all agree as to intent. My question, or point, would be that normally a proof coin parallels the 'regular' version - proof quarters look like better quarters, proof gold coins look like better gold bullion coins, and so on. Are there any examples or anything at all to suggest that a fair reading of "platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins" would refer to bullion coins and distinct circulating proof coins that have no bullion or base counterpart?

In support of my position I will cite the "proof silver quarters" that were beautiful silver versions of the circulating state commemorative quarters. The silver version had a face value of $0.25, but the market value was much higher (then and now). [I continue to belabor this 'proof' question in an update below.]

WOW: Here is a very deep legal objection to the coin that reflects a lot more research than Laurence Tribe did, and which I am not qualified to evaluate in short order. The gist:

The Federal Reserve would receive a coin on which would yield a profit of $1 trillion dollars based on the concept of seigniorage, which is the difference between the cost to produce the coin and the "face value" of the money stamped on it by the U.S. Mint.  However, under the rules of both the American Eagle program and other commemorative programs, the coin does not become "legal tender" until the U.S. Mint is paid for the coin with other legal tender or an appropriately valued amount of bullion.  Until the U.S. Mint was paid, the Federal Reserve would possess a rather beautiful coin worth only about $1,700, representing the intrinsic value of the platinum contained therein.

Who knew? Well, I can't confirm that. Apparently there are court cases:

In the recent case of the government confiscation of 1933 Saint-Gauden Double Eagle gold coins from the heirs of Israel Swift, the court ruling confirmed the validity of the legal tender concept.  In the court ruling, Judge Davis cites precedents, including the government's original case against Israel Swift in 1934, and confirmed that until a U.S. Mint coin is bought and paid for, the coin is not considered to be legal tender.  The concept of a coin not becoming legal tender until it was paid for was further confirmed in the sale of the Fenton-Farouk 1933 Double Eagle gold coin.  When the Double Eagle was sold on July 30, 2002, for $7.6 million, an additional $20 was required to be paid to "monetize" the face value of the coin in order for it to become legal currency.

More on the Farouk-Fenton Double Eagle at Wikipedia, including this:

On July 30, 2002, the 1933 double eagle was sold to an anonymous bidder at a Sotheby's auction held in New York for $6.6 million, plus a 15-percent buyer's premium, and an additional $20 needed to “monetize” the face value of the coin so it would become legal currency, bringing the final sale price to $7,590,020.00, almost twice the previous record for a coin [link to CNN].

Moving on, one wonders how the Treasury could pay the mint for a Trillion Dollar coin?

To offset the liability to the U.S. Mint, the U.S. Treasury would have sell $1 trillion in bonds which can’t legally be done due to the limits placed on its borrowing capacity by the debt ceiling limit.  The idea of a $1 trillion platinum coin becomes a fatally flawed solution that solves nothing.

Hmm, could the Fed buy it direct from the Mint? I think that any change in the standard rules and procedures for moving coins and money would invalidate the whole concept, but I am not by any means up to speed on just what the standard practice and bookkeeping looks like when moving coins from the Mint to the Treasury to the Fed. Some law starts here.

Fascinating.

ERRATA: The statutory sale price for First Spouse gold coins includes this detail, which jibes with the notion of paying the face value as part of the sale price:

(4) Sale of bullion coins.—Each bullion coin issued under this subsection shall be sold by the Secretary at a price that is equal to or greater than the sum of—

(A) the face value of the coins; and

(B) the cost of designing and issuing the coins (including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, marketing, and shipping).

DO REMEMBER THE GROUND RULES: The Coiners carry the legal day if they can demonstrate that the text of the law is clear as read. The Intentionalists (my side) win if we can muddy the waters as to the meaning of the text sufficiently to oblige a judge (or opining attorney) to open the door to Congressional intent to resolve the language dispute. Let me quote Laurence Tribe:

Of course, Congress probably didn’t have trillion-dollar coins in mind, but there’s no textual or other legal basis for importing this probable intention into the statute. What 535 people might have had in their collective “mind” just can’t control the meaning of a law this clear.

Well, the textual basis for arguing that "bullion coins" means something important has been established. As to "proof platinum coins", the Intentionalists don't need to show that "proof coins" must mean something more than "coins" and that the distinction disqualifies the Trillion Dollar coin; we only need to show that such a construction is reasonable, and that Congressional intent and past practice must be referenced to clarify the meaning.

So, a definition: at About.com we learn that:

Definition: A proof coin is a coin struck using a special, high-quality minting process, and made especially for collectors...

You should never see proof coins in circulation, because they are made for collectors, and sold by the mint for more than face value.

That helps the Intentionalists.

Here is the US Mint describing their 'proof' gold coins:

The term "proof" refers to a specialized minting process that begins by manually feeding burnished coin blanks into presses fitted with special dies. Each coin is struck multiple times so the softly frosted, yet detailed images seem to float above a mirror-like field.

Nothing to suggest that some coins are struck only in 'proof' condition. In fact, the clear suggestion is that proof coins are a subset of a larger coin group. That helps the Intentionalists, since the Trillion Dollar plan seems to be to strike one (or more) 'proof' platinum coins that have no circulating or bullion counterpart. Very unusual practice, and surely not what 'proof' means.

Here is the US Mint describing their platinum proof coins (and you can't make this up):

In 2009, the United States Mint introduced a new six-year platinum coin program. This new series explores the core concepts of American democracy by highlighting the preamble of the U. S. Constitution.  It will examine the six principles found in the preamble beginning with "To Form a More Perfect Union" in 2009, followed by "To Establish Justice" in 2010, "To Insure Domestic Tranquility" in 2011, "To Provide for the Common Defence" in 2012, "To Promote the General Welfare" in 2013...

Cool - a trillion dollar coin to "promote the general welfare". And to compound the ironies, the 2012 coin was totally not PC:

The 2012 reverse (tails) design is emblematic of the principle "To Provide for the Common Defence," the fourth of six principles of American democracy found in the Preamble to the United States Constitution....it features a vigilant minuteman from the Revolutionary War representing the protection and defense of the country during its early days.  The minuteman carries a rifle and a book, which symbolizes the importance of knowledge in defending our Nation.

I am pretty sure the rifle signifies the importance of an armed citizenry. Awkward messaging. But I digress. None of these proof coins exist independently of underlying bullion coins, so again, score one for the Intentionalists.

Finally, let's turn to the law on coins. The phrase "proof" appears a few times, and I think we can reasonably attempt to infer its meaning from its other uses. Here we go, the first of many cites:

(C) The Secretary may continue to mint and issue coins in accordance with the specifications contained in paragraphs (7), (8), (9), and (10) of subsection (a) and paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection at the same time the Secretary in minting and issuing other bullion and proof gold coins

The next cite contemplates proof and conventional versions of a coin:

(j) General Waiver of Procurement Regulations.—

(1) In general.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), no provision of law governing procurement or public contracts shall be applicable to the procurement of goods or services necessary for minting, marketing, or issuing any coin authorized under paragraph (7), (8), (9), or (10) of subsection (a) or subsection (e), including any proof version of any such coin.

Next, our headliner:

(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins...

The next cite contemplates proof and conventional issuance:

(6) Issuance.—

(A) Quality of coins.—The Secretary may mint and issue such number of quarter dollars of each design selected under paragraph (4) in uncirculated and proof qualities as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.

So far, so good for the Intentionalists. The next is another pairing of proof and conventional coins:

(7) Issuance of numismatic coins.—The Secretary may mint and issue such number of $1 coins of each design selected under this subsection in uncirculated and proof qualities as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.

The next cite is another pairing of proof and conventional coins:

(6) Quality of coins.—The bullion coins minted under this Act shall be issued in both proof and uncirculated qualities.

Yet another pairing of proof and conventional coins:

(q) Gold Bullion Coins.—

(1) In general.—Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005, the Secretary shall commence striking and issuing for sale such number of $50 gold bullion and proof coins as the Secretary may determine to be appropriate...

More - this is a bit of nuts and bolts:

(B) Design.—The protective covering required under subparagraph (A) shall be readily distinguishable from any coin packaging that may be used to protect proof coins minted and issued under this subsection.

Yet another pairing of proof and conventional coins:

(4) Issuance of numismatic coins.—The Secretary may mint and issue such number of $1 coins of each design selected under this subsection in uncirculated and proof qualities as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.

The next cite addresses the Washington DC coin with another pairing of proof and conventional coins:

(5) Quality.—The Secretary may issue the coins described in paragraph (1) in both proof and uncirculated versions...

Where's the proof? West Point:

(7) Mint facility.—Any United States mint, other than the United States Mint at West Point, New York, may be used to strike coins minted under this subsection other than any proof version of any such coin. If the Secretary determines that it is appropriate to issue any proof version of such coin, coins of such version shall be struck only at the United States Mint at West Point, New York.

Here is a finding in the 1997 amendments that brought us to this unhappy place; the context is the proposal to do a silver proof version (at a nice premium) of the conventional quarter:

(3) a circulating commemorative 25-cent coin program could produce earnings of $110,000,000 from the sale of silver proof coins and sets over the 10-year period of issuance, and would produce indirect earnings of an estimated $2,600,000,000 to $5,100,000,000 to the United States Treasury, money that will replace borrowing to fund the national debt to at least that extent.

Finally, a comment on the 50 States program, again keyed off of conventional quarters:

(A) Quality of coins.—The Secretary may mint and issue such number of quarter dollars of each design selected under paragraph (4) of this subsection in uncirculated and proof qualities...

I think it is more than fair to argue that "proof coins" meant something to Congress when it was written, and if we respect the meaning of those words the Trillion Dollar coin is out of bounds. In virtually every other usage "proof" is taken to mean an enhanced subset of a larger coin series. Yet there is no way this law allows a trillion dollar bullion coin (absent a trillion dollars worth of platinum) and there are no circulating trillion dollar coins awaiting their proof partners, as we have with the silver poof editions of conventional quarters.

 

Comments

[Buddy, can you spare a platinum dime?]

The coin to answer all the financial questions of the universe will be worth 42 sense.
================

[peter]

Harvard beclowns itself once more.

[narciso]

Well we've gone beyond absurd, so lets contemplate something more understandable:

http://illinoispaytoplay.com/2013/01/09/u-s-attorneys-office-protected-rezko-friend-dr-ronald-michael/

[Adenoid Hynkel]

If the hermaphroditic constituency can hijack the dictionary for economic and political advantage, why can't the collectivists?

[henry]

If you are wondering where the sea ice went, its hanging out here. The horror of trapped orcas, while the indigenous peoples ate the one polar bear that came to rescue them. Maybe that coin can be dropped here to make a bigger hole in the ice.

[narciso]

So the patently ridiculous is affirmed, and the patently obvious, then again look at the Troy McClure nature of the pundit,

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2013/01/09/why-it-is-so-difficult-to-kill-the-death-panel-myth/

[Send other peoples' money.]

Free Willy.
======

[Jim Ryan]

Gah! That death panel link of narc's! How could anyone be so stupid?! Who is Peter Ubel? The comments thread corrects him, at least.

[rse]

Kim-did you see the link to the new science standards I put up on WUWT? It's all centered around concepts and activities to support a belief in CAGW and Gaia is in trouble unless we change our behaviors.

And Experience Science. Dr J would go into mourning.

[Jim Ryan]

By the way, under Obamacare, will the federal government now pay for a male to get an adadictomy? I mean, what if you think that you were meant to have two? Suppose you were quite inconsolable about it. That could be considered a medical condition.

[NK]

TomM said: "My suggestion is that Prof. Tribe ask one of his students to take ten minutes to study this. Then we will get an answer that reflects the language used in the law." NO Tom-- we WON'T. Tribe's verbal diarhya has nothing to the 'Law' or defined terms of Treasury Statutes-- Tribe is just one of the TEAM- TeamDem, and he's joining the narrative of the COIN -- "THE ONE COIN TO RULE THEM ALL" (just think Tolkien's LOTR, with Barry I as Sauron and Lew as Saruman-- Drum, Krugman and Tribe are assorted Orcs and Goblins.) Tribe is joining the COIN meme, so when Barry I really goes all GeorgeV and unlawfully issues new debt bonds without a higher debt limit,TeamDem will say, well you didn't want the coin- so we issued plain old bonds instead. It's all ridiculous of course, but somehow it's keeps their voting constituents happy-- so TeamDem goes with it.

[An IC/LEI pickle we're in.]

I'll go look, Early Bird; I don't know whether to run for the hills or drag out the long board, the beach is suddenly so empty.
===============

[NK]

ack, read my comment -- my fingers really didn't work-- diarrhea(sp)

[narciso]

So 'courage' is an interesting thing in Washington' as Bret Stephen has pointed out;

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/10/chuck-hagel-s-career-shows-he-s-not-afraid-to-change-his-mind.html

[Watch out for falling rocks, and temperatures.]

What thread, rse? I can't keep up over there; Antnee and the Horde are too prolific. Actually I feel a little like a cat surrounded by cockroaches; I have no idea which way to jump there is so much edifice crumbling.
========

[Sink the PlatMark.]

Perhaps Cap'n Ahabama can nail that coin to a mast. pour encourager les outres, accent on the last syllabull.
==============

[narciso]

I can't find it, in the first 10 threads, kim.

[NK]

Taranto agrees that TeamDem is engaged in a ridiculous narrative/meme project regarding "THE ONE COINTO RULE THEM ALL"-- his speculation as to why may be a it too convoluted-- (PS: excellent MobyDick reference@8:50)

[NK]

The Taranto link here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324581504578231812006460892.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

[Jim Eagle]

I think we are looking in the wrong direction vis a vis a trillion dollar platinum coin.

Why not just lay claim to the Moon? After all we were the first to land on it and the last to explore it. No one else has planted a flag there. So its ours.

What is it worth? Not much today without colonization but after that you might get more than a trillion or so out it.

What is the Moon Worth?

[narciso]

What's the scam, I know there has to be one;

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/10/new-federal-restrictions-on-mortgages-not-exactly-cra-friendly/

[NK]

TomM-- instead of reading the corruptions of Krugman and tribe in the NYT-- you may want to shift your gaze to Pravda-- which makes far more sense these days-- Amerika--- never give up your GUNZ: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

[Thomas Collins]

I think y'all are misinterpreting the statute. The Treasury Secretary's discretion clearly allows the substitution of "silicone or saline" for "platinum" and also allows for the concept of virtual deposit. That clearly being the case, Geithner (or Lew, or whoever is Treas. Sec. when the debt limit is reached) can simply virtually deposit Katherine Webb with the Fed, and Obama will have enough leeway to write checks for the rest of his term!

[Jane: Mock the Media]

Happy Birthday Caro!!!

[Timb]

Tom bangs the drum everyday....and, as as been pointed out to him on various forums, gets statutory interpretation wrong. The law says what it says and Congressional statutory intent is immaterial unless it is too vague or contradictory.

Hysterically, Tom considers the Adler objection to federal insurance premium support to be valid because an omission in the law and then flips 100 percent when the coin (which Obama, as careful a politician as has ever been seen, will never do) is mentioned.

Wonder what he thought of Lilly Ledbetter and Congressional intent then?

In short, Tom. I'd listens to the lawyers on this if I were you and stop being so afraid your team will lose the upcoming hostage crisis before it starts. Is unbecoming

[NK]

Timb is so deluded he actually believes the rhetoric of TeamDem-- even though TeamDem doesn't believe the ONE COIN TO RULE THEM ALL rhetoric of TeamDem. This is the state of the modern Left/Dem tribe, it is a form of mental illness.

[Thomas Collins]

Happy Birthday, Caro!

[henry]

Happy Birthday Caro!!!

[maryrose]

Happy Birthday Caro!
The dems must be desperate now that they are no longer going to get ANY tax increases. This coin kerfuffle is just that a new scam. No one is buying it.Obama is in big trouble-financially. His second string cabinet stinks and Hilda Soltis can't get out fast enough. Holder is stuck because of his Omerta agreement with Bammy.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Besides, if Timb doesn't understand that BTFD applies to buying SPY, not legalities, then he's beyond negotiable assistance.

[NK]

PS: to the young deluded commenter-- as "Proof Coin" and "Bullion Coin" are terms defined by the Treasury Secy, the statute as written is explicitly clear as to Congressional intent -- which is build your Platinum Coin, just so long as it as about as large and weighs as much as Burke Class Destroyer. The Left is beyond parody -- and let me be impolite and stare and point and say they are mentally ill.

[Captain Hate]

So Tribe beclowns himself in support of his former prized sooper genius student? On the same day as Junior Cuomo did an Al Roker all over his national aspirations? Well all righty then...

[GMax]

Does Timb do bits on SNL? Cuz that is one damn funny guy. Hilarious actually...

[marlene]

Happy Birthday Caro!

[centralcal]

Happiest of birthdays to you, Caro.

[Clarice]

Caro! Happy Birthday!

[Janet]

Posted by: Send other peoples' money.

Hah!

[jimmyk]

The Left is beyond parody -- and let me be impolite and stare and point and say they are mentally ill.

At this point I can hardly blame the left for thinking that Barry can do whatever he wants by executive order. I'd feel better if he were actually slapped down just once. He's like a teenager who will keep testing the limits until he's told "No."

[Janet]

Happy Birthday, Caro!!
Lots & lots of love to you!!!

[rse]

http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/DCI%20Arranged%20Standards%20-%20Public%20Release.pdf

is what I am talking about. Pay attention to the blue column. The activities are the assessments so the mentions of content, although interesting to see where focus is, are not going to drive what goes on in classroom.

And engaging in the activity creates the presumption that learning occurred. The focus is on physical activity and away from a mental focus.

Which of course rather makes the chance of future world altering innovations less.

[hit and run]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY CARO!!!

[Melinda Romanoff]

Happy Birthday, Caro!

[Jane: Mock the Media]

Beat ya Hit!

[Captain Hate]

HB Caro.

[maryrose]

And the beat goes on... How many days until we can rid ourselves of the Obama infestation?
2016 keeps looking better for us. Hillary- illness Cuomo-goofy gun policies and Biden= doofus extroadinaire doesn't look like a formidible bench to me.

[sbw]

Andrew Cuomo, trying to ride both guns and schooling, just launched the first salvo to win the Regressive Democrat nomination for president in 2016.

Cuomo belongs not to the good Democrats, mind you, but a new wing of Regressive Democrats that appears to operate under the motto rse identified, “Grab the guns and gut the minds.”

From good Democrats, some became Progressives, and not some have gone off the edge further to become Regressive. Regressive Democrats aren’t so much interested in solving a problem as using it to their advantage.

Regressive Democrats love “Change.” Change is an opportunity to disregard what works and replace it with whatever furthers their advantage. They believe in equal opportunity, using real or imagined victims.

It's official. Now we can talk about what Regressives bloviate.

[jimmyk]

"What's the scam, I know there has to be one;"

Why, you don't think the left can simultaneously believe that both providing loans and denying loans to low income people are discriminatory?

[Danube of Thought iPad]

Seems to me that the definition of bullion coin settles the issue regardless of the congressional omission.

[Threadkiller]

Tribe is the clown who said having two citizen parents makes a "natural born citizen"...

[Threadkiller]

Happy Birthday Caro!!

[Clarice]

I understand that in the entire history of mining for platinum we've never made it to the trillion $ mark.

[Tom Bowler]

What a great idea! Printing money on something other than paper! I guess I'll delay my retirement for a few more years.

[Sue]

Happy birthday Caro.

[hit and run]

Jane:
Beat ya Hit!

Indeed. The List was under the misimpression that it had exclusive wishing rights until 10AM.

[Mike]

Not challenging, just curious: How does that definition of proof coin say it's an enhanced version of the bullion coin? It looks like it could be an enhanced version of any coin, and the statute provides for "platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins," as separate items. Just wondering if I'm missing some technical meaning here.

[Mike]

And actually, following up on that -- the platinum proof coins available for sale from the Mint appear to be inscribed with a $100 value, yet be sold for $1,892. That suggests that inscribed value and metal value are different on these (but maybe the price is increased for rarity? Does the Mint do that?). So do these coins currently violate the law, was the price of platinum radically different when they were minted, or... what?

[Timb]

One wonders where on the Right, one can find an educated commentariat, rather than a bunch of kill the messenger Michael Savage listeners?

The idea that coin must ave a trillion dollars of platinum is just plain silly and has been debunked across the ol' blogosphere.

Maybe, instead of railing against this idea which Obama has neither the stones nor nclination to do, Tom can explain to us why he doesn't spend his time railing against the inanity of the debt ceiling hostage crisis? I mean, obviously, the Limaugh clones flinging pooh have no ideas, but Tom pretends to be a sane conservative.

[Jane: Mock the Media]

The List was under the misimpression that it had exclusive wishing rights until 10AM.

Was that in the small print?

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--How does that definition of proof coin say it's an enhanced version of the bullion coin?--

Good point. However a look at definitions includes the following;

bullion: platinum, gold or silver in the form of bars or other storage shapes, including coins and ingots.

bullion coin:
precious metal coin traded at current bullion prices.

business strike:
a coin produced for general circulation (as opposed to a proof or uncirculated coin specially made for collectors).

So is the trillion dollar coin made for one collector; Mr. Bernanke?
We're heading into Scholastic territory of how many dollars can be made to balance on the WH pinheads.

[Timb]

Mike, the Sec of Teasury is allowed to set the price and does based on market demand. That's why he/she could mint one and assign a trillion dollar value to it.

Of course, doing so might make Tom and Megan McArdle mad and keep the House Republicans from attempting to reverse the results of Novembers election by threatening the American economy (can we assume the readers are even aware House Republican candidates received almost one million fewer votes that Dems and maintain their majority through gerrymandering?)

[Jane: Mock the Media]

Tom can explain to us why he doesn't spend his time railing against the inanity of the debt ceiling hostage crisis

Let me get this straight: You show up and demand that the owner of a blog you know nothing about write a post on a subject that you want to talk about?

Does that sort of behavior usually work for you?

[DJR]

And yet, even if you're right, it also says "and proof platinum coins." So the secretary can issue proof coins in the denominations within his discretion. Proof describes the minting process and has nothing to do with the value of the metal.

[hit and run]

I mean, obviously, the Limaugh clones flinging pooh have no ideas

This is obviously the work of Limbaugh clones:

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

Happy Birthday Caro.

Great pic, Hit. I'm pretty sure "timb" won't get it, though.

[narciso]

LOL hit, happy birthday, Caro, I was hearing a snippet of Alex Jones, on Beck, 'not only do the trains don't run over there, no way to get there,

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--That's why he/she could mint one and assign a trillion dollar value to it.--

Proof coins are by definition made for collectors.
It is quite reasonable to consider that delegation of Congress's authority Constitutional.

Is it reasonable to consider a $trillion coin obviously not intended for collectors and used to circumvent a duly passed and signed Congressional law asserting its power over the debt limit of the USA a Constitutional delegation of the following power given to congress by Article One Section 8; the power to "coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."

[Jane: Mock the Media]

Save Pooh! Save Pooh! Save Pooh!

[Danube of Thought]

the Sec of Teasury is allowed to set the price and does based on market demand

So the market demand for this coin will be such as to set its value at $1 Trillion? Give Sotheby's a shot....

[Janet]

Hahahaahaha! Wonderful, hit!

[Cecil Turner (on a mini pad)]

I'm not sure the "proof coin" is supposed to be a special case of the bullion coin, but nor am I convinced it matters. In any event, Tribe's analysis:

Second, other clauses of 31 USC §5112 do set such limits, but §5112(k)—dealing with platinum coins—does not. So expressio unius strengthens the inference that there isn’t any limit here.

is so clearly flawed that it undermines his conclusion.

Save Pooh! Save Pooh! Save Pooh!

See what happens when you infringe on the right to arm bears?

[GMax]

Is there any collector that has a Trillion dollar net worth? I know that Bill Gates is generally presumed to be the wealthiest American and I think he clocks in at $50 B +/-. Seems to me the Trillion dollar coin can have but one buyer, i.e.Uncle Ben's Conversion Dice. Dont let that stop you from the comedy tour, hell even Roseanne Barr got paid for her dreck.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

All words lost their meaning when Congress puts them in front of lawyers.

[narciso]

There is no principle to Hagel, just a desire 'to get a piece of the action'

http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2013/01/hagel-tied-to-james-wolfensohn.html

[Captain Hate]

The Children of the Cornhole weigh in: http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/111780/when-it-comes-worldview-jack-lew-obama-in-coke-bottle-glasses?utm_source=The+New+Republic&utm_campaign=c6a3035385-TNR_Daily_011013&utm_medium=email#

[Danube of Thought]

Tribe never said two US citizen parents were required for natural-born status. Here is what he (and Ted Olson) did say:

These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance....

If the Panama Canal Zone was sovereign U.S. territory at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, then that fact alone would make him a “natural born” citizen under the well-established principle that “natural born” citizenship includes birth within the territory and allegiance of the United States...Premising “natural born” citizenship on the character of the territory in which one is born is rooted in the common-law understanding that persons born within the British kingdom and under loyalty to the British Crown–including most of the Framers themselves, who were born in the American colonies–were deemed natural born subjects.

[Threadkiller]

From your quote:

"These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens..."

You provide proof that he did indeed say what I said he said.

Your research shows that he said more than that, which I acknowledge.

Thank you.

Would you like to see what former Federal Judge Chertoff said about Natural Born Citizenship?

[Danube of Thought iPad]

"These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens..."

No one can possibly read the complete sentence as meaning that two US parents were required for a person to be natural born.

[Danube of Thought iPad]

In discussing John McCain (both of whose parents were US citizens), Chertoff said something like "I assume that if your parents are Americans you're a natural born citizen."

It is simply impossible to argue that he therefore meant that there was no other way that one could be natural born. But that sort of fallacious reasoning is a birther trademark.

[Threadkiller]

Sure they can.

(1)Born off of U.S. soil requires citizen parents(plural)

and

(2)born on U.S. soil requires being born on U.S. soil and allegiance(which some believe means being born on U.S. soil).

[Threadkiller]

"Secretary CHERTOFF. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen."

More than an assumption, it is also his "understanding". I assume that a former Federal judge and, at the time of his testimony, the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law shoud be a pretty good source.

Good enough for Leahy to personaly, in Senate hearings, question him and him alone on the topic.

I wonder why Leahy did not ask him about citizenship status given to those born on U.S. soil? I wonder why Chertoff didn't offer such info?

[Threadkiller]

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

Tah-dah!

[Danube of Thought iPad]

"I wonder why Leahy did not ask him about citizenship status given to those born on U.S. soil? I wonder why Chertoff didn't offer such info?"

Because they--like Tribe and Olson--were talking about John McCain.

[Danube of Thought iPad]

"Sure they can."

Who can what?

"(1)Born off of U.S. soil requires citizen parents(plural)"

They don't say that. They say that one who is born abroad to two US parents, like McCain, is natural born. They were investigating the question presented. They said nothing about one who is born abroad to one US citizen and one alien.

[Threadkiller]

"Because they--like Tribe and Olson--were talking about John McCain."

Tribe and Olson did not discuss citizenship status of those born on U.S. soil?

I think you may be mistaken.

"They said nothing about one who is born abroad to one US citizen and one alien."

We agree. But that does not change what they did say.

[cathyf]

Actually, DoT, the number is even more ambiguous. If you are talking about children born abroad as a classification, you naturally use the plural. So Joe is born in Italy to an American parent and an Italian parent. John is born in England to an American parent and a British parent. Joe and John are children born abroad to American parents. That is quite properly plural -- there are 2 American parents, just not to the same child.

[Threadkiller]

There can be two Commanders in Chief at the same time with three allegiances.

[Danube of Thought iPad]

Tribe and Olson discussed it in the context of one who is born outside the US but in a US territory.

You're correct, cathyf, and that is sense in which I believe they used the plural. But my point is simply that they never said having two US parents, whether born here or abroad, is a prerequisite to natural born status. That was the position impliedly imputed to Tribe by TK's original post, and I wanted to correct it.

Nothing Chertoff said is inconsistent with what I have said. But I can assure you that nothing in his tenure at TSA or on the fedral bench (or as an associate in my law firm) ever required him to give a moment's thought to the meaning of natural born.

[Threadkiller]

"But I can assure you that nothing in his tenure at TSA or on the fedral bench (or as an associate in my law firm) ever required him to give a moment's thought to the meaning of natural born."

Leahy thought differently.

TK's original post:

"
Tribe is the clown who said having two citizen parents makes a "natural born citizen"...

Posted by: Threadkiller | January 10, 2013 at 10:31 AM"

[Threadkiller]

"But my point is simply that they never said having two US parents, whether born here or abroad, is a prerequisite to natural born status."

From Tribe and Olsen:

"Senator McCain's status as a ``natural born'' citizen by virtue of his birth to U.S. citizen parents is consistent with British statutes in force when the Constitution was drafted, which undoubtedly informed the Framers' understanding of the Natural Born Citizen Clause. Those statutes provided, for example, that children born abroad to parents who were ``natural-born Subjects'' were also ``natural-born Subjects ..... to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever.'' British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geol. 2, c. 21. The Framers substituted the word ``citizen'' for ``subject'' to reflect the shift from monarchy to democracy, but the Supreme Court has recognized that the two terms are otherwise identical. See, e.g., Hennessy v. Richardson Drug Co., 189 U.S. 25, 34-35 (1903). Thus, the First Congress's statutory recognition that persons born abroad to U.S. citizens were ``natural born'' citizens fully conformed to British tradition, whereby citizenship conferred by statute based on the circumstances of one's birth made one natural born. "

Parents, plural, is specific to McCain and to back up that definition they use citations that, per your understanding, use the plural of "parent" in a singular way?

[Tom Maguire]

How does that definition of proof coin say it's an enhanced version of the bullion coin? It looks like it could be an enhanced version of any coin, and the statute provides for "platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins," as separate items.

Excellent point, but the answer doesn't save the Coiners.

For examnple, there are Silver Proof version sof the prosaic old quarter. Face value $0.25, market valye much more.

In principal, I suppose they could do a Platinum Proof Quarter. Maybe a quarter ounce, market value way in excess of $0.25.

However! The face value is still only $0.25, since it is a quarter for legal tender purposes.

So they can either do a trillion dollar bullion coin (except they lack the bullion) or they can do a proof coin, except there are no trillion dollar series to 'proof'.

I think/hope I cleared that up in an extended addition on "proof".

And to 'Timb' - I think 'statutory construction' means something other than 'ignore the pesky words that confuse or contradict my interpretation'. YMMV.

[Tom Maguire]

From djr:

And yet, even if you're right, it also says "and proof platinum coins." So the secretary can issue proof coins in the denominations within his discretion. Proof describes the minting process and has nothing to do with the value of the metal.

Well, that is what 'proof' means to you. My guess is that the legal community will be more interested in what that phrase means to the mint, and in related contexts elsewhere in the law. And having looked at every use in that section of the law, it is often paired with "uncirculated" and clearly contemplates the existence of proof and non-proof coins of a related series.

A stand-alone proof coin with no counterparts would be an unconventional interpretation of the word, and hence open to challenge.

Troubled? Try this - no where in the platinum coin section of the law is "coin" defined. So can the Secretary, in his discretion, roll out a six-sided cube with six cool engravings and call it a coin?

YES HE CAN! If words have no meaning...

[Rick Ballard]

TM,

If Tribe insists it's a great floor wax as well as being a delicious dessert topping, why should I believe Chief Justice Roberts won't agree? Is issuance of Clown Coins (backed by Clown Bond sales) any more damaging than Mad Ben's QE∞ compounded with ZIRP forever?

[ezra abrams]

Does anyone remember, just last summer, every law professor in the country was confidently predicting how the SCOTUS would vote on ACA.
And all those law profs were dead nuts wrong.
you would think that a failure of that magnitude would chasten them a little, but no.

31 USC 5112 (k) is whatever 5 SCOTUS judges say it is; the idea that no one has standing - r u really gonna say not one judge will grant standing ??

and, as someone who is very liberal, think this whole thing is liberal hypocrisy in action:
Imagine if R Reagan tried to use a coin to fund the contras; liberals like tribe would scream bloody murder about such a patently un constitutional lawless act.

[Richley Thomson]

Hi, you have blog posting are very impressible for all people. Thanks..

http://www.maxiclassifieds.com/

[sbw]

That's more lucid than some of my own comments.

[sbw]

Just reported maxi to domain records holder godaddy.com.