Skip to main content

View Diary: House Republicans mock idea to save economy from threat of GOP sabotage (146 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Two points about that. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aitchdee, George Hier, nextstep, VClib

    First, he's technically not "the guy that wrote the law" (or, in his case, co-wrote) at least as far as the Courts are concerned.  It doesn't matter what was the "intent" of the guy who actually penned the words.  What matters is the intent of Congress -- the people who voted to pass the law.  Congress is technically the "author" of the law for purposes of looking at the intent.

    Second, he readily admits that this is not what was intended by the law.  From your link:  

    Yes, this is an unintended consequence of the platinum coin bill, but how many other pieces of legislation have had unintended consequences? Most, I’d guess.
    Congress has to pretty specifically delegate authority like that, if they do indeed want to do it.  Courts don't generally  say, Congress clearly did not mean to give you authority to do xyz, but since they did a bad job of drafting the words, we're going to rule you have the authority to do x,y,z.  It's the exact opposite -- if Congress does a bad job drafting, and you can read a law a different ways, the Courts go with what Congress intended to do.  

    He's NOT saying it's "legal."  What he is saying is  "Congress clearly didn't intend to give the Secretary the power to mint a trillion dollar coin but hey, I can read the words to say that." If that is true, then a court would probably find it is NOT legal.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site