Morning in America: Butthurt Achieved

[Gilgamesh]

I don't know what's sillier, using a hypertechnical reading of a statute intended to allow the Treasury to create commemorative coins or a political party holding the world economy hostage so that it can extract policy concessions instead of paying the bills it's already racked up.

"Hypertechnical"? We're not talking Bruesewitz here.

(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.

[Wheezer]

I don't know what's sillier, using a hypertechnical reading of a statute intended to allow the Treasury to create commemorative coins or a political party holding the world economy hostage so that it can extract policy concessions instead of paying the bills it's already racked up.

"Hypertechnical"? We're not talking Bruesewitz here.

(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.

You left out the "hypertechnical" part.

[Gilgamesh]

I don't know what's sillier, using a hypertechnical reading of a statute intended to allow the Treasury to create commemorative coins or a political party holding the world economy hostage so that it can extract policy concessions instead of paying the bills it's already racked up.

"Hypertechnical"? We're not talking Bruesewitz here.

(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.

You left out the "hypertechnical" part.

It derives from a statute enabling the Treasury to mint commemorative coins: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112

[Wheezer]

I don't know what's sillier, using a hypertechnical reading of a statute intended to allow the Treasury to create commemorative coins or a political party holding the world economy hostage so that it can extract policy concessions instead of paying the bills it's already racked up.

"Hypertechnical"? We're not talking Bruesewitz here.

(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.

You left out the "hypertechnical" part.

It derives from a statute enabling the Treasury to mint commemorative coins: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112

I know that. This does not make a plain reading "hypertechnical." Why are you even waving around the statute? The subsection itself exists only in proximity to the word "commemorative," so you're stuck with ponying up the legislative history. Which is totally not hypertechnical.

[Gilgamesh]

I don't know what's sillier, using a hypertechnical reading of a statute intended to allow the Treasury to create commemorative coins or a political party holding the world economy hostage so that it can extract policy concessions instead of paying the bills it's already racked up.

"Hypertechnical"? We're not talking Bruesewitz here.

(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.

You left out the "hypertechnical" part.

It derives from a statute enabling the Treasury to mint commemorative coins: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112

I know that. This does not make a plain reading "hypertechnical." Why are you even waving around the statute? The subsection itself exists only in proximity to the word "commemorative," so you're stuck with ponying up the legislative history. Which is totally not hypertechnical.

It was a bill designed to allow the Treasury to mint commemorative coins which is now being read in such a way to allow the Treasury to mint and produce coins of such value to hypothetically reduce all of the national debt by fiat.

Here's the Congressional Record of the bill's passage: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2000-09-26/pdf/CREC-2000-09-26-pt1-PgH8191.pdf#page=1

There is nothing there to suggest that this bill permits anything that the trillion dollar coin advocates suggest it can do.

[Quality Start Machine]

Huey has a kindred spirit at Foggy Bottom.

[Wheezer]

I don't know what's sillier, using a hypertechnical reading of a statute intended to allow the Treasury to create commemorative coins or a political party holding the world economy hostage so that it can extract policy concessions instead of paying the bills it's already racked up.

"Hypertechnical"? We're not talking Bruesewitz here.

(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.

You left out the "hypertechnical" part.

It derives from a statute enabling the Treasury to mint commemorative coins: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112

I know that. This does not make a plain reading "hypertechnical." Why are you even waving around the statute? The subsection itself exists only in proximity to the word "commemorative," so you're stuck with ponying up the legislative history. Which is totally not hypertechnical.

It was a bill designed to allow the Treasury to mint commemorative coins which is now being read in such a way to allow the Treasury to mint and produce coins of such value to hypothetically reduce all of the national debt by fiat.

Here's the Congressional Record of the bill's passage: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2000-09-26/pdf/CREC-2000-09-26-pt1-PgH8191.pdf#page=1

There is nothing there to suggest that this bill permits anything that the trillion dollar coin advocates suggest it can do.

There's not really anything to suggest that it doesn't, either. I think you're missing my point, which is that trying to construct an argument based on legislative history is more "hypertechnical."

[R-V]

I don't know what's sillier, using a hypertechnical reading of a statute intended to allow the Treasury to create commemorative coins or a political party holding the world economy hostage so that it can extract policy concessions instead of paying the bills it's already racked up.

"Hypertechnical"? We're not talking Bruesewitz here.

(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.

You left out the "hypertechnical" part.

It derives from a statute enabling the Treasury to mint commemorative coins: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112

I know that. This does not make a plain reading "hypertechnical." Why are you even waving around the statute? The subsection itself exists only in proximity to the word "commemorative," so you're stuck with ponying up the legislative history. Which is totally not hypertechnical.

It was a bill designed to allow the Treasury to mint commemorative coins which is now being read in such a way to allow the Treasury to mint and produce coins of such value to hypothetically reduce all of the national debt by fiat.

Here's the Congressional Record of the bill's passage: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2000-09-26/pdf/CREC-2000-09-26-pt1-PgH8191.pdf#page=1

There is nothing there to suggest that this bill permits anything that the trillion dollar coin advocates suggest it can do.

There's not really anything to suggest that it doesn't, either. I think you're missing my point, which is that trying to construct an argument based on legislative history is more "hypertechnical."

Gil, as an objective observer, I'm sorry to report that you are losing this legal argument. Maybe you'll be ready for internet legal tussles with Wheezer once you finish Hollywood Upstairs Law School.

[Gilgamesh]

I don't know what's sillier, using a hypertechnical reading of a statute intended to allow the Treasury to create commemorative coins or a political party holding the world economy hostage so that it can extract policy concessions instead of paying the bills it's already racked up.

"Hypertechnical"? We're not talking Bruesewitz here.

(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.

You left out the "hypertechnical" part.

It derives from a statute enabling the Treasury to mint commemorative coins: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112

I know that. This does not make a plain reading "hypertechnical." Why are you even waving around the statute? The subsection itself exists only in proximity to the word "commemorative," so you're stuck with ponying up the legislative history. Which is totally not hypertechnical.

It was a bill designed to allow the Treasury to mint commemorative coins which is now being read in such a way to allow the Treasury to mint and produce coins of such value to hypothetically reduce all of the national debt by fiat.

Here's the Congressional Record of the bill's passage: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2000-09-26/pdf/CREC-2000-09-26-pt1-PgH8191.pdf#page=1

There is nothing there to suggest that this bill permits anything that the trillion dollar coin advocates suggest it can do.

There's not really anything to suggest that it doesn't, either. I think you're missing my point, which is that trying to construct an argument based on legislative history is more "hypertechnical."

Gil, as an objective observer, I'm sorry to report that you are losing this legal argument. Maybe you'll be ready for internet legal tussles with Wheezer once you finish Hollywood Upstairs Law School.

Take the argument to its natural conclusion then.  What's to prevent the President from ordering the Treasury secretary to issue a $16 trillion dollar platinum coin, depositing that with the Fed, and then erasing the debt?  It doesn't work like that.

My position is that the legislation does not per se permit the Executive from doing this.  Nothing more.

[flannj]

The face of that coin is going to need something big.

[CBStew]

The face of that coin is going to need something big.

The Governor of New Jersey?  (Sorry.  I'll leave now.)

[morpheus]

The face of that coin is going to need something big.

I think even Gil will find this perfectly acceptable legal tender.

[flannj]

The face of that coin is going to need something big.

I think even Gil will find this perfectly acceptable legal tender.

"In Big Cheyenne we trust"

[thehawk]

The face of that coin is going to need something big.

I think even Gil will find this perfectly acceptable legal tender.

"In Big Cheyenne we trust"

Per google translate:

In Big Cheyennensi nos confídimus. Videamus quam quomodo hoc ludit ex


Makes about as much sense as the debt cieling vote itself does.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

The face of that coin is going to need something big.

I think even Gil will find this perfectly acceptable legal tender.

"In Big Cheyenne we trust"

Per google translate:

In Big Cheyennensi nos confídimus. Videamus quam quomodo hoc ludit ex


Makes about as much sense as the debt cieling vote itself does.

O quam indigna! Nunc plus quam umquam.