This message was self-deleted by its author

[Larrymoe Curlyshemp]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Larrymoe Curlyshemp) on Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:33 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Jenoch]

1. There is a problem with this idea.

All new denomination of coins to be minted by tbe treasury have to be approved by congress. If we want a $2 coin, it takes a bill in congress o be passed and signed by the president.

[Rosco T.]

3. Nope.

Read the loophole again. Since this would be a COMMEMORATIVE coin, the Sec of the Treasury can set the denomination.


HEHEHEH, make it a NRA Commemorative coin

[Jenoch]

4. Commemorative coins are not legal tender.

[Larrymoe Curlyshemp]

6. We're not talking about a commemative coin

Click the link, read the full article.

[11 Bravo]

8. I'm trying to decide if I should believe Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman ...

or you, with regard to the legality of such a coin. I hope your feelings aren't hurt, but I'm going to go with Paul.

[Jenoch]

10. I confess, I did not read the link before

my first two posts, but you missed the fact that this is a "reader's" idea, not Krugman's and Krugman himself says it's silly. This idea is worthless, but mildly entertaining. It would be tied up in the courts before it would accomplish anything useful that could not be accomplished by other means. I guess I'm just a bucket of cold water when silly ideas like this come up.

[Larrymoe Curlyshemp]

13. Silly?

What's silly is interpreting an Amendment to the Constitution----enacted in the era of muskets, clearly pertaining to governmentally-regulated militias----as a license for every loonfuck in the country to own everything from AK-47s to nuclear missiles. (Hey, the Amendment just says arms: It doesn't specify what kind of arms!)

[Jenoch]

17. Silly was not my word, it was Krugman's.

[truebluegreen]

27. He called it silly "but benign".

Last edited Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:32 AM - Edit history (1)

And how did Krugman characterize hitting the debt ceiling? "....equally silly, but both vile and disastrous."

I'm going with benign.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

37. I think you missed something...

Blog Post

Should President Obama be willing to print a $1 trillion platinum coin if Republicans try to force America into default? Yes, absolutely. He will, after all, be faced with a choice between two alternatives: one that’s silly but benign, the other that’s equally silly but both vile and disastrous. The decision should be obvious.

[Jenoch]

43. I'm not saying it should not be done.

I just don't think it would necessarily work as a 'deposit'. It may work as a threat however. (I think something else will be done before it gets to the point of minting a coin with a face value of a million dollars. Plus, who's going to count tje change once it is used in the first transaction)?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

47. I don't have a link

But on Daily Kos there's a letter from a former Director of the U.S. Mint who explains in detail how this could be accomplished. I recommend it.

[Jenoch]

50. I'll look it up, I just don't think it will ever happen.

[davsand]

33. Is it keep and BARE or bear arms? Either way...

[PETRUS]

14. Tied up in the courts?

Jack Balkin, Philip Diehl, and many others disagree with you.

[Jenoch]

18. They can certainly have any opinion they wish.

But their opinion won't stop the issue from going to the courts.

[PETRUS]

21. Who has standing to sue?

[Jenoch]

22. Whoever decides to bring court action will Find q solution to that problem.

[PETRUS]

23. Doubtful. That's why challenges to the Fed never make it to court.

[The Second Stone]

16. In the US commemorative coins are legal tender and always will be

per the 14th amendment.

The mint says they are tender. http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/?action=commemoratives

[Jenoch]

19. That's interesting.

So far, the value of the metal of which the coin is made has been worth more than the face value of the coin. That's why they are not in general circulation.

I still do not think the trillion dollar coin is a viable solution to the debt ceiling problem. In just a cursory web search there seems to be about as many people who say it could work as those who say it is ridiculous.

[lastlib]

20. Not true.

I have two commemorative proof dollar coins minted by the U.S. Mint. The certificates specifically state that they ARE legal tender.

[Larrymoe Curlyshemp]

25. Cha-ching!

I don't know what point Jenoch is trying to push.

[DanTex]

9. Not if the coin is made of platinum.

It's true. Weird as it sounds, there's a loophole that allows the Treasury to mint platinum coins of any denomination it wants without any approval. It is intended for commemorative coins, but they are still legal tender.

[Jenoch]

5. I'm still trying to figure out what guns have to do with the debt ceiling.

[Larrymoe Curlyshemp]

7. Okay

I know what you are now.

[Jenoch]

12. You were right the first time, I'm a who.

I'm a Democrat who has never been a member of nor a supporter of the NRA. I also happen to own a few guns, none of which would be restricted under Senator Feinstein's bill.

[Recursion]

11. Tribalism. It's no prettier from our side than it is from theirs (nt)

[LAGC]

15. The "militia" is every able-bodied civilian between the ages of 18 and 45.

But several Supreme Court decisions have expanded that view considerably, so older people qualify as well.

[Larrymoe Curlyshemp]

26. But the focus, regardless, was on a "well-regulated" militia

And I can't help but wonder whom other than a governmental body would administer said regulation?

[michreject]

28. When the Constitution was written

"Well regulated" meant well equipped not well controlled.

[A Simple Game]

29. That's a new one to me. Did you think it up yourself or did you read some talking points? n/t

[michreject]

30. Intrepretation of the Federalist Papers

Regulated meaning well trained and equipped.

[maxsolomon]

31. Do you consider our modern militia well-trained?

I sure as fuck don't.

If the militia is how the SCOTUS has defined it, get 'em out in the rain & sleet and make 'em march around and TRAIN. And that's ALL militia members, EVERYONE between 18 & 45, not just the ones who bear arms.

It sure will be popular, but FREEDOM ISN'T FREE!

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. Then they'll get to buy M4s and M16A2s, genuine assault rifles.

I'm cool with that....

[maxsolomon]

39. why would you be cool with that?

you want to UP the firepower available to undiagnosed schizophrenics and angry suicidal males?

[A Simple Game]

42. No need to buy them, the government will supply them.

They will be safe and sound in the armory if and when needed.

[jmg257]

35. Actually it meant well armed and well trained, while a 'militia' was ALWAYS

an entity under a governmental authority.

With specific regards to the 2nd, it meant a well organized, armed, and disciplined entity of the State, ALL according to guidelines of Congress.

Bubba's militia and everyone else who simply possesses any firearm they wish is NOT part of any constitutional well regulated Militia.

[NickB79]

36. You might want to read post #34

It directly contradicts what you just said.

[jmg257]

38. You might want to re-read what I just wrote, especially parts about

constitutional, the 2nd, and well organized.

Then re-read #34 and see it contradicts nothing.

[michreject]

44. And they had to furnish their own arms

Nothing was provided.

[jmg257]

45. That is correct... including handguns (and swords). They got to keep them too!

Hence the terms "to keep and bear arms".

[michreject]

48. And well regulated

Well trained and well equipped.

[jmg257]

52. Or constitutionally - Well 'organized, armed and disciplined'.

And of course well-regulated by the States, according to federal guidelines. (Von Steuben's Blue Book for discipline, uniform arms & organization per the Militia Acts, etc.)

Hamilton said it best:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice....To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia"

[michreject]

54. Yes.

Very good.

Regulated in 1776 didn't have the same meaning as some are trying to attach to it with the modern vernacular. It doesn't mean legal regulations (gun control).

[samsingh]

24. kick

[NickB79]

34. You might want to recheck the definition of legal militia

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[maxsolomon]

40. This is where the absolutists move to the 2nd clause

A militia is neccessary, and yes, that's citizens from 17-45, but the RKBA is not dependent on militia membership because of the semicolon in the amendment. the whole gist is that the RKBA shall not be infringed.

I've been told that multiple times on DU and other forums.

Of course, we already infringe on the RKBA. No automatics, no RPGs, no nukes, etc.

[jmg257]

41. 1) there are only commas in the amendment (which are not important to the discussion).

The whole gist is the 2nd clause, and how 'the right to keep and bear arms' is interpreted. (if there is an issue in how to interpret it, then simply refer to the 1st clause - why there are preamble clauses in the 1st place).

Even I would have a hard time showing that, especially in this case, it does not refer to keeping and bearing arms associated with militia service.

Was there a right to own arms outside of the militia? Of course. Were guns VERY important?...Of course. Did the people have a right to own private property, including arms? Of course. But there can be little doubt that THE reason for the 2nd amendment was to ensure the government could not usurp their new militia powers to disarm the militias, or declare whole classes of people who could not serve (it was a duty and a right).

The recourse of destroying the militias being a greater need for a large standing army.


All mute for now, thanks to Heller. Which BTW still allows infringements of sorts on an individual's right to arms.

[krispos42]

46. militia, the people, the state

Three distinct entities mentioned in the 2nd. Only one has the right to keep and bear arms recognized.

Oh, and I'm in the militia, by the way... I'm a male between the ages of 17 and 45.

[michreject]

49. Not me. I'm old. :)

Not to you but just a general comment.

The National Guard wasn't chartered until 100 years after the Constitution was written. The militia doesn't refer to the NG.

[Larrymoe Curlyshemp]

51. ATTENTION! THIS IS WHAT I MEANT:

Republicans are complaining that minting the coin violates the spirit of the law. All I'm saying is that having millions of people all over this country having guns that could have individually taken out the entire fucking British Army at the time violates the spirit of the Second Amendment.

Now, would a mod be so kind as to lock this thread?

[Coyote_Tan]

53. You can self delete...