Obverse of the 2012 American Eagle Platinum Proof

Regardless of the side of the political spectrum you are in this topic, it will not work.

First question is whether it is legal for the U.S. Mint to strike the $1 Trillion coin. Although there are as many answers as there are pundits, everyone points Title 31, Section 5112, paragraph “k” (31 U.S.C. § 5112(k)) that reads as follows:

This law was passed by congress under their authority in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that says “The Congress shall have Power… To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, ….” The law’s intent was to give the U.S. Mint the authority to issue the American Eagle Platinum Bullion and Platinum Proof coins. American Eagle Platinum coins have a $100 face value and sell for a premium over the market price of platinum and taking into consideration coin’s production cost. However, the law does not restrict the issuance of the platinum coin to the American Eagle program.

But is it constitutional? The argument from John Carney of CNBC says it is not by twisting a ruling by the Supreme Court. Carney cites the case Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc. (531 U.S. 457 (2001)) in saying that “the Environmental Protection Agency rule making authority was too broad because Congress had failed to provide ‘intelligible principle’ to guide the agency.” Unfortunately, like a lot of people, Carney reads the headlines and not the majority opinion. In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the law “does not permit the Administrator [of the EPA] to consider implementation costs” which is against previous precedent because the Clean Air Act, which was under question, “often expressly grants the EPA the authority to consider implementation costs, a provision for costs will not be inferred from its ambiguous provision.”

In other words, the Supreme Court said that because there are conflicts in the law. The “intelligible principle” is that Congress cannot delegate partial authority over one part of a law where other parts have a requirement to consider other circumstances. In other words, the Supreme Court is saying that Congress has to be consistent in delegating its authority.

Could 31 U.S.C. § 5112(k) be interpreted in the same manner? It is possible for the Supreme Court to declare the law unconstitutional, but if they do so they would also have to rule that the law that allowed the U.S. Mint to create the 2009 Ultra High Relief Gold Coin unconstitutional. According to 31 U.S.C. § 5112(i)(4)(C):

Under both 31 U.S.C. § 5112(k) and 31 U.S.C. § 5112(i)(4)(C), the Secretary can authorize the U.S. Mint to strike any denomination platinum or gold coin with the value of $1 Trillion. Since there is no ambiguity or contradictions that would be able to use Whitman v. American Trucking Assns. as a precedence, the constitutionality should not be in question.

If the Secretary could mint and issue a $1 Trillion coin, then the Secretary could mint 17 such coins that could theoretically be used to pay off the country’s debt and give the country a positive balance for the first (and only) time since 1835 under President Andrew Jackson.

For discussion sake, let us say that the Secretary authorized the U.S. Mint to produce a $1 Trillion coin. Who is going to buy the coin?

If the concept is to use the profit (seigniorage) from the sale of the coin, whether it is made of gold or platinum, the coin has to be sold in order for there to be a profit. If the government would just deposit a $1 Trillion coin in the Federal Reserve, then where is the profit for the government? In order for a coin to become legal tender, it has to be bought from the government for at least its face value unless the law allows otherwise (see the American Eagle Bullion program and any of the commemorative programs). The U.S. Mint does not consider a coin to be legal tender until it receives an appropriate deposit of bullion or other forms of legal tender.

It this concept of legal tender that has been behind the government’s position that because the 1933 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle coin was not paid for by a depositor (part of which is required in 31 U.S.C. § 5122), they are government owned coins (31 U.S.C. § 5121) and not legal tender. This concept has been upheld in the history of the 1933 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagles including the settlement over the Fenton-Farouk coin that sold for $7,590,020 with $20 going to “monetize” the coin.

Most recently, Judge Legrome D. Davis (U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania) confirmed the legal tender status of the 10 Double Eagles that Joan Langbord allegedly found in a box once owned by her father, infamous Philadelphia jeweler Israel Switt who is considered one of the central figures in the coins removal from the U.S. Mint. In Lanbord et al v. U.S. Treasury (Civil Action No. 06-5315), Judge Davis’s opinion cites past cases including the government’s own case against Israel Switt in 1934 for not forfeiting recalled gold and the previous return of 75 coins attributed to him. His opinion effectively confirms the U.S. Mint’s argument that once it creates a coin it is not legal tender and a liability on their balance sheet until the coins is bought.

If the coin is has to be paid for by a depositor before it can become legal tender, who will buy a $1 Trillion coin?

If the coin is just deposited with the Federal Reserve, there will be a $1 Trillion liability on the government’s balance sheet. In order to make the books balance, the Department of Treasury would have to sell debt bonds to make up the difference and that would add $1 Trillion to the national debt.

If the coin is bought by the Federal Reserve, then the Fed will have to pay $1 Trillion to the U.S. Mint for the coin reducing its overall working capital by $1 Trillion. Paying for a $1 Trillion that could not be used will just transfer the debt from the general treasury to the Federal Reserve. Since the Federal Reserve is in charge of managing the country’s money supply, the net effect will be to reduce the money supply by $1 Trillion that will cause the economy to shrink—any time you artificially remove money from the economy it will shrink which will also weaken the buying power of the U.S. dollar.

Transferring the debt away from the general fund might look good on paper but the effect will shrink the economy and cause more problems than even considering the constitutionality of doing this.

Unfortunately, this scheme was conjured by someone who did not think through the idea thoroughly.

Coin image courtesy of the U.S. Mint.