Is there such a thing as a "Constitutional dollar"?

[shirohniichan]

Douglas Gnazzo in his article "Honest Money, Part III: Coinage Acts from 1834-1900" makes the following claim:

 

In the Coinage Act of 1873, Congress for the very first time stated that gold coins of the “one-dollar piece”, which contained 23-22/100 grains of fine metal – “shall be the unit of value.”

 

As previously shown, however, the Constitutional “dollar” was a specific silver coin of a standard weight and fineness. Without a Constitutional amendment to change the original standard, the Coinage Act of 1873 that purports to effect such change, is undeniably unconstitutional.

 

The Act also stopped the minting of Silver Dollars, which is beyond question an unconstitutional act – once again, requiring a constitutional amendment authorizing such change.

 

See the whole article here .

 

I've read through the Constitution, and nowhere can I find the definition of a dollar.

 

Is this guy blowing smoke? If the specific weight and fineness of a dollar is not specified in the Constitution, how can a change thereof "require" a constitutional ammendment? Section 8 of Article I reads, "Powers of Congress...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures", but it doesn't specify what those regulations are.

 

 

[shirohniichan]

OK, I found parts 1 and 2 of his article. Apparently he takes the Coinage Act of 1792 to be the document defining what the Constitution meant. I think he's stretching this a bit. If Congress had the power to coin money and regulate it's value, I don't see why a constitutional amendment would be necessary.

[Conder101]

Yes he is obviously raising the Act of 1792 to being part of the Constitution, But only the part that defines the silver in a dollar not the section that defines the amout of gold that is a dollar. Because he believes that changing the silver weight would take a Constitutional amendment, but he sees nothing wrong with the Act of 1834 changing the weight of gold. Apparently he believes that the contitutional power granted to the Congress to regulate the value of money only applies to gold money.

 

His article is silly. From his writings and opinions I'd say that if this was 1896 he would have been solidly in Bryan's Free Silver /Bimetallism and 16 to 1 camp.

 

He also believes that free coinage of silver is part of the Constitution.

[michael]

Is there such a thing as a "Constitutional dollar"?

 

why yes it is our first usa dollar

 

the 1776 continental dollar

 

 

[Conder101]

Michael, How would a coin dated eleven years before the Constitution was written be a "Constitutional" dollar?

[jtryka]

The Constitution does not specifically define the "dollar" but rather vests the power to do so with the Congress, which it initially did in 1792. Although there were no specific limits on the Congress' power to "regulate the value thereof" I would be hard pressed to think of any of our founders that would have imagined that the value the Congress would eventually come up with is zero, with what is essentially an imaginary currency unit. What we have today technically is a gold price pegged at $42.2222 per ounce, but realistically, the Congress has left the dollar as an undefined term, a null set if you please.

[carson city]

1987 Signing of the Constitution Commemorative Silver Dollar

[Bruceswar]

1987 Signing of the Constitution Commemorative Silver Dollar

 

What about this coin?

 

[michael]

if you got to ask you do not get it

 

 

[ziggy29]

It seems to me that the Constitution doesn't prevent this anywhere. It seems to me that the definition and regulation of coinage and its composition is left to Congress. And when Congress passes an act in 1792, it's free to pass another act to amend or modify the provisions in that act, as they have done repeatedly since 1792.

[shirohniichan]

It seems to me that the Constitution doesn't prevent this anywhere. It seems to me that the definition and regulation of coinage and its composition is left to Congress. And when Congress passes an act in 1792, it's free to pass another act to amend or modify the provisions in that act, as they have done repeatedly since 1792.

 

Yep-- Good ol' Doug Gnazzo either doesn't understand the wording of the Constitution or he is being disingenuous to support his cause.

 

I got a copy of the 1792 Mint Act for reference. According to Section 9, the silver dollar was to be "of the same value of a Spanish milled dollar, as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver".

 

Section 13 goes on:

"And it be further enacted, That the standard for all silver coins of the United States, shall be one thousand four hundred and eighty-five parts fine, to one hundred and seventy nine parts alloy; and accordingly, that one thousand four hundred and eighty-five parts in one thousand six hundred and sixty-four parts of the entire weight of each of the said coins, shall consist of pure silver, and the remaining one hundred seventy-nine parts of alloy, which alloy shall be wholly of copper."

 

If Gnazzo considers this arrangement "constitutional", would he argue changing the alloy to one part per nine parts pure silver also required a constitutional ammendment?