From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:41:20 -0800 (PST)
To: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <dougr@skypoint-gw.globelle.com>
Subject: Re: Not. [Was Re: Federal Reserve Bank is ILLEGAL?]
Message-ID: <199611121840.KAA04414@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 11:57 PM 11/11/96 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Doug Renner wrote:
>
>> article nearly head-on.  However is it true that what you are saying is 
>> that two fundamental premises in the article you refer to as "rabid" are 
>> incorrect?  Namely:
>> 
>> "ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION STATES THAT CONGRESS SHALL HAVE
>> THE POWER TO COIN (CREATE) MONEY AND REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF.
>
>The above is a true statement.  Note however that "congress" cannot
>operate the mint.  It must -- **MUST** -- delegate this duty to the
>executive branch (or someone outside the legislative branch, cf. Chadha
>v. U.S.) if it wants it done. Congress is free to select the type
>of agent it wants to do this.  Indeed, if Congress chose to license
>private mints, that would, IMHO be legal.  The point here is that the
>states don't have the power to coin money.

But, apparently, during the 1800's states (?) and individual banks did 
indeed print their own currency.

The way I see it, a positive statement in the Constitution that the Feds 
have the power to coin money does not necessarily exclude other 
people/banks/states/foreign countries from doing likewise.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com