patrick.net

I don't get it. How is the Coinage Act defining a "constitutional" dollar any more than any other arbitrary definition? The coinage act wasn't a constitutional amendment, it was simply a federal law. The constitution says very little about money, other than empowering congress to print and regulate its value.

Yes, historically money was valued in terms of fixed weights of silver. What does that have to do with being "constitutional"?

I'll entertain the notion that the US will go back on a metal standard one day (after all, anything can happen after the Rapture). There's absolutely no reason to think that whatever definition is used will have any relation to any definition used in the past, or even that it will use a metal that has been used in the past.

Didn't we go over this already? A dollar is a unitless measurement of currency with only vague mention and no definition in the Constitution.

It was originally designed to be identical to the common solid global currency of the day, the Spanish dollar. Over time the dollar has been morphed into various forms as commercial requirements of being initially a continental and eventually hegemonic global trading power evolved.

As Kevin mentions above, contrary to your article, the Coinage Act of 1792 is not of "Constitutional" basis, it is/was law in keeping with the Congress' constitutional powers of regulating the nation's money.

This is a pretty major misunderstanding.

I swear wingnuts are the stupidest people on the planet. Our government should go on the Aluminum standard so you'd get some (perceived) direct utility out of our currency.

The 7th Ammendment and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution both refer to a "dollar." At that time no definition of a dollar was necessary because anyone who knew economics and trade knew that a dollar was a reference to the Spanish coin of a specified weight and purity of silver.

The fact that the dollar was recognized as a specific amount and purity of silver cannot be denied by any but the most self-deluded.

AdHominem says

The 7th Ammendment and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution both refer to a “dollar.” At that time no definition of a dollar was necessary because anyone who knew economics and trade knew that a dollar was a reference to the Spanish coin of a specified weight and purity of silver.

Ah, the 7th amendment (and article 1) was written before the coinage act, and in fact the term "dollar" as mentioned did refer to spanish dollars. It was a poor choice of words to put absurd values like "10 dollars" and "20 dollars" into the constitution, particularly since it doesn't say WHAT a dollar is, but that just proves that the constitution was written by flawed human beings and is a flawed document.

It still doesn't give a "constitutional" value for a dollar.

The fact that the dollar was recognized as an specific amount and purity of silver cannot be denied by any but the most self-deluded.

I don't think anyone is denying that the dollar *WAS* recognized as a specific amount of silver (in 1792)...

What we're saying is that this doesn't make it "constitutional".

The only thing that makes something constitutional (or unconstitutional) is being written in the constitution. Nowhere in the constitution does it say what the value of a dollar is, nor should it -- that was the job of congress. In 1792, Congress chose to make the value of a US dollar equal to that of a spanish dollar, because at the time it was the standard. This was a reasonable solution in 1792, but it isn't 1792 anymore.

If you want a great example of how horrible a constitution can be if you try to put every law into it, rather than using it as a basic framework for creating law, look at California.

For all the talk about the supposed harm caused by fiat currency, I still see a world around me that is, as a whole, vastly superior to any time in history that we didn't use fiat currency. All major economies use fiat currencies, and, recent troubles notwithstanding, things are OK.

You want to argue semantics rather than accept the facts.

Congress cannot change the meaning of the words in the constitution without making a mockery of the constitution, and you know this. For example, the constitution also talks about a "year" but does not stipulate that it is 365 days. So by your reasoning congress could determine (change) the meaning of the word year to mean 40 days and we could "constitutionally" elect a new president every 160 days. You have strayed into the realm of absurdity with your argument.

Anyone who fails to recognize that our country was founded on the understanding that a dollar was a specific amount and purity of silver is deluded.

AdHominem says

Anyone who fails to recognize that our country was founded on the understanding that a dollar was a specific amount and purity of silver is deluded.

Congress has the power to regulate it. I agree that the usage of "dollar" is vague and the power to "coin money" implies hard currency. But you're the one reading meaning into the Constitution that simply isn't there.

I understand that rich people and goldbugs want to handicap the Congress' power to debase our currency as they have over the past 100 years. Good luck with that.

I'll buy that for a dollar!