It will fit in your collection nicely...
Posted on 08/21/2010 7:17:45 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
Today, the U.S. Treasury released a $1 coin commemorating former President James Buchanan. And people aren't happy about it.
To understand why, some background is helpful. In 2007, thanks to a bill promoted by then-Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire, the Treasury began minting $1 coins with the likenesses of former Presidents, starting with George Washington.
The coins -- which have been appearing ever since, featuring a new President every three months -- are meant to improve use and circulation of America's dollar coins, which are often seen as an awkward misfit among currency, neither fish nor fowl.
Sununu's initiative drew inspiration from the 50 State Quarters Program, which launched in 1999. The runaway success of that effort, according to his legislation, "shows that a design on a U.S. circulating coin that is regularly changed... radically increases demand for the coin, rapidly pulling it through the economy."
The bill also suggested that a program wherein Presidents are featured on a succession of $1 coins, and First Spouses commemorated on gold $10 coins, could help correct a state of affairs where "many people cannot name all of the Presidents, and fewer can name the spouses, nor can many people accurately place each President in the proper time period of American history."
So the bill passed, and the Washington dollar coin appeared not long after. It was followed by Adams, Jefferson, et al., with the First Spouse coins minted alongside.
Now we're up to Buchanan, the fifteenth President, who took office in 1857 and turned things over to Abraham Lincoln in 1861, and whose coin (produced at the Philadelphia and Denver Mints and purchasable through the U.S. Mint website) has occasioned the aforementioned grousing. Here's where some feel the coin program is falling short:
1. The coins aren't circulating.
Many Americans have never gotten into the habit of using $1 coins, and as a result, over a billion commemorative Presidential coins are sitting around in a stockpile at the Federal Reserve. As BBC News reports, if these coins were stacked up and laid on their side, they'd stretch for 1,367 miles, or the distance from Chicago to New Mexico.
2. They don't seem to be educating people, either.
In February 2008, a year after the first presidential coins were minted, The New York Times reported that a survey had found large numbers of American teens to be woefully ignorant of their country's history. It was far from the first time Americans had gotten a dismal grade in history, suggesting that Sununu's commemorative-coin campaign isn't having much of an effect in that arena, either.
3. James Buchanan was kind of a crappy president.
In fairness, this is a grievance with a specific president, not the presidential coins program as a whole. Still, it seems to come up in all the coverage of the new coin: Buchanan wasn't very good at his job.
That's the consensus of historians, anyway, who have traditionally censured Buchanan for his failure to prevent the Civil War. Last year, a C-SPAN survey of historians granted Buchanan the dubious distinction of worst president ever.
Still, all of this isn't reason enough to declare the commemorative-coins program a total failure. If more coin collectors start avidly pursuing the presidential coins, it could have the effect of pushing down the national debt, thanks to the way the value of the coins fluctuates with their availability. And if the dollar coins were to catch on and replace paper $1 bills entirely, it could save the country between $500 and $700 million each year in printing costs.
Plus, if things stay on track, 2012 will see the release of the Chester A. Arthur dollar coin -- marking the first time that long non-commemorated president's face has ever appeared on any nation's currency. And who are we to deprive him of that?
LOL at you calling me a Mexican or something. That’s absolutely pathetic.
And even if my ancestors did, would that make me less of a man? You know, like the blacks the south held in slavery? They weren’t considered men by the VAST majority of the south.
How “Christian” of you.
And based on first hand experience, who would know that better than you?
Ah, now you’ve got pokie all flustered and confused. Perhaps he should “steel” a moment and compose hisself...lol
You mean the ipse dixit (i.e., asserted, not proved) opinion by Chief Justice Chase formerly of the Lincoln cabinet who helped fight the war against Southern secession and who was the tenth justice of the Supreme Court back when he was nominated thanks to the Republican Congress and Lincoln who packed the court by adding a tenth justice to ensure favorable opinions?
And there was nothing illegal or unconstitutional about the creation of West Virginia. ... Congress later approved their actions, and the Supreme Court recognized the legality of the split when they heard the case of Virginia v. West Virginia following the rebellion. The case which, by the way, said West Virginia could keep the counties in question.
From: [Link]
Although the Court never directly addressed the matter of the constitutionality of West Virginia statehood, despite persistent questions as to whether the Reorganized Government had legitimately given Virginia's consent to the creation of the new state, the conclusion in Virginia v. West Virginia also settled, for practical purposes, the statehood issue.
According to that site SCOTUS never ruled on the constitutionality of WV statehood. From that link again:
In Virginia v. West Virginia, the Supreme Court in 1871 rejected (7-3) Virginia's claims. It held that the statutes of the Reorganized Government regarding Berkeley and Jefferson effectively created an agreement between the two states that the counties would become part of West Virginia "whenever" voters assented.
One side can create an agreement binding on both? Is this a new law passed by the Supreme Court? Who knew? I can agree that you should give me your car, and your objection to that will not stand up in court.
What about the large number of counties whose voters did not assent in the 1861 WV statehood referendum? Also, Jefferson County, one of the two counties in question in the Virginia v. West Virginia case, had voted to secede from the US in 1861. It then voted to join WV in 1863 but only when its Confederate soldiers were absent. Sounds like Northern style politics all right.
I'm referring to the Supreme Court decision that ruled the rebel acts of unilateral secession unconstitutional. Your whining about the Chief Justice and the make-up of the court notwithstanding.
Although the Court never directly addressed the matter of the constitutionality of West Virginia statehood, despite persistent questions as to whether the Reorganized Government had legitimately given Virginia's consent to the creation of the new state, the conclusion in Virginia v. West Virginia also settled, for practical purposes, the statehood issue.
Not directly no. But by taking up the Virginia v West Virginia case it recognized both states as equals and ruled in favor of the state of West Virginia.
I can agree that you should give me your car, and your objection to that will not stand up in court.
Analogous to what y'all seem to believe solved the status of Fort Sumter. But I digress.
What about the large number of counties whose voters did not assent in the 1861 WV statehood referendum? Also, Jefferson County, one of the two counties in question in the Virginia v. West Virginia case, had voted to secede from the US in 1861. It then voted to join WV in 1863 but only when its Confederate soldiers were absent. Sounds like Northern style politics all right.
Complain, complain, complain.
traitors ? Wow, such big words. How’s Ballerina class been treating you, sister boy ?
------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the laugh. "loyal Americans" This is very interesting. Me thinks... the word that you intentionally skipped over was "Bolsheviks"... But, that is due to your socialist thinking process. The more socialist, The more American. Real nice, Mr. Gorbachev...
wow...u baited a harpie i had not seen around in a long time there hoss
---------------------------------------------
1. Sister boy
A feminine, homo-type of a male.
Does that sweeten your tea any, sister boy ?
GOPcapitalist once put this way about the [precedent] of Texas v. White on secession:
That precedent is built upon the point of a bayonet and nothing more. If you subscribe to the mistaken belief that law is nothing more than an accumulation of words upon sword tips, then yes. It is illegal. If you believe that law is predicated upon a greater and immutable truth than sword tips however, then secession was, is, and always will be a perfectly legal and legitimate act.
Analogous to what y'all seem to believe solved the status of Fort Sumter. But I digress.
We've been through this before. Here's a link to a long chain of posts between the two of us and several others on Eminent Domain. I'll summarize the discussion:
- I posted that South Carolina claimed the fort under eminent domain.
- You said they couldn't do that under the US Constitution.
- I said the US Constitution no longer applied but the Confederate Constitution did.
- I cited where the Confederate Congress had authority over forts, arsenals, etc.
- You said eminent domain could not be applied to property owned by foreign governments.
- I found an article that said the US had done just that.
- The article noted 1940 & 1941 US laws allowing seizure of foreign properties.
- You wanted something more recent.
- I cited a 1974 case.
Complain, complain, complain.
The case you cited said "counties would become part of West Virginia "whenever" voters assented. But counties whose voters had not assented were forced to become part of West Virginia that no one in their county had voted for.
Well that's a sure way to sell your point. </sarcasm> Here's a link to a long chain of posts between the two of us and several others on Eminent Domain. I'll summarize the discussion:
It was an ridiculous argument on your part then and it's just as ridiculous now. Eminent domain doesn't apply. Eminent domain requires judicial proceedings, not just the barrel of a gun. Eminent domain protects the rights of both sides, not just the side stealing the property. Eminent domain does not allow a state to seize the property of the federal government, any more than it allows the federal government to seize the property of a state. And even if your claim of confederate sovereignty been true, eminent domain does not allow one sovereign nation to seize the property of another sovereign nation. That would require a treaty.
by William Miller
.......... As far as the merits of Texas v. White are concerned, the most serious flaw in bestowing any credibility on this decision was that this case was not about secession; it was about the ownership and sale of bonds as well as jurisdiction. The parties to this case did not argue or cite evidence claiming the States had, or did not have, a right to secede; they focused their arguments on the legality of the bond sale, and their arguments on jurisdiction dealt with the status of Texas as a State under military rule—not if Texas had the constitutional right to secede.
The Chief Justice made his comments on secession when he wrote the majority opinion, and his comments were not based on arguments made by the parties to the case. Furthermore, the Chief Justice’s comments were what is know as “dicta,” which is defined at Law.com as,
A comment by a judge in a decision or ruling which is not required to reach the decision, but may state a related legal principle as the judge understands it. While it may be cited in legal argument, it does not have the full force of a precedent.
It is therefore unreasonable to claim this issue was “decided” when the arguments presented by the parties to the case did not address the right of States to secede. Without the opportunity for argument, debate, and rebuttal on the issue, it cannot be said that this issue was “decided” when a very partisan Chief Justice took the occasion to insert his opinion on a question that was not argued before the Court.
Texas v. White involved a claim by the State of Texas that United States bonds, paid to Texas as part of the Compromise of 1850, had been improperly sold by the Confederate State legislature during the Civil War. During the reconstruction period, the governor of Texas sued the purchasers of the bonds to reclaim them because the manner in which the transactions were carried out was, in his opinion, illegal.
The defense raised several arguments including one of jurisdiction, claiming that Texas, during reconstruction, was not a State since it was under the authority of the military and had no representation in Congress. This provided an opportunity for Chief Justice Chase to include in the majority opinion his ruling, as dictum, that the States did not have the right to secede, and therefore Texas was then, and had always been, a State.
Fact is, there has never been a court case where arguments were made on the right of States to withdraw from the Union. Without the opportunity for both sides to present their arguments on the issue, just dicta alone from the Chief Justice does not establish a precedent setting opinion of the Court. This fact alone should put an end to the use of Texas v. White to refute the right of States to withdraw from the Union, but even so, there are other problems with Texas v. White that need to be exposed.
There was also a serious conflict of interest and lack of impartiality by the Chief justice in his writing of the majority opinion. There were five Lincoln appointees sitting on the bench when Chief Justice Chase offered his opinion on secession, but the Chief justice was the only Justice intimately entwined with the Lincoln administration and its policies regarding secession. He certainly should have recused himself if he was going to opine from the Bench on Lincoln’s view of secession.
Chief Justice Chase was an integral part of the Lincoln administration and served as Treasury Secretary from 1861 until 1864, after which Lincoln nominated him as the Chief Justice of the United States. While in the Lincoln administration, Chase was one of only two cabinet members offering support for Lincoln’s plan to resupply Fort Sumter.
As Doris Kearns Goodwin recounts on page 336 of her book Team of Rivals, Secretary Chase suggested that Lincoln consider, “The organization of actual government by the seven seceded states as an accomplished revolution—accomplished through the complicity of the late admn—& letting that confederacy try its experiment.” As Secretary, Chase seemed to support the idea that, as he referred to them, “the seceded seven states” had organized an “actual government.” Nevertheless, as Chief Justice, he perhaps looked to find some justification for the death and destruction perpetuated by an administration of which he was intimately involved. There can be no doubt that the Chief Justice should have recused himself from inserting an opinion of the court on the constitutionality of secession—the core issue of Lincoln’s administration, of which he was a key collaborator.
It is interesting that in Justice Chase’s opinion, he again used the term “the seceded states” as he did in his advice to Lincoln on Fort Sumter. Not to make too much of this phrase, but Lincoln seemed to take great care not to use the “seceded states” phrase, for in doing so it could be taken as an admission that the States had indeed seceded. Further evidence that Chase believed secession had occurred can also be found in his opinion on this case when he wrote, “The relations of Texas to the Union were broken up, and new relations to a new government were established for them.” Here again, he seemed to be saying that Texas had indeed “broken up” its relations with the Union and joined another government—in other words, they had seceded.
Despite Chief Justice Chase’s clear bias regarding the issue of secession, there were also problems with the underlying facts of his ruling. Not surprisingly, for someone intimately involved with Lincoln’s administration, his opinion parroted one of Lincoln’s arguments—the thoroughly debunked theory of, “a more perfect and perpetual Union.”
Chase claimed, “The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States.” However, he failed to mention or explain the secession of nine of these original States from their first union (the Articles of Confederation); the only union the States ever proclaimed to be perpetual. There can be no doubt that our first Union under the Articles of Confederation, although claiming to be perpetual, or our current Union under the Constitution, without any such claim of being perpetual, were neither perpetual nor indissoluble.
It was also odd that for someone as well versed in the law as was the Chief Justice, to use a phrase found in the preamble of our Constitution, “a more perfect union,” upon which he based his claim of a perpetual union. Odd because preambles and headings are rarely used to form legal opinions.
This ruling also claimed the, “Authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and carry on war, and authority to provide for the restoration of State governments, under the Constitution, when subverted and overthrown, is derived from the obligation of the United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government.” But Chase’s opinion conveniently leaves out the constitutional requirement for the “Application of the Legislature” in the suppression of domestic violence, the constitutional protection against invasion, and the fact that the seceded States had a “republican form of government” under their newly constituted government.
Another canard promoted in the Court’s opinion claims, “War having become necessary to complete the purposed destruction by the South of the Federal government, Texas joined the other Southern States, and made war upon the United States…” This is pure nonsense since even those deniers of the right of secession understand that the South was not attempting to wage war against the United States—they simply wanted to be left alone.
Finally, the United States Supreme Court, as an impartial arbiter on disputes involving the interpretation of the Constitution, has lost all credibility. Who can deny that politics plays the most prominent of roles in the nomination of Supreme Court Justices as well as their confirmation. Republicans and Democrats both work to insure that new Justices look favorably on their issues when they are seated on the Court. If one needs any evidence of the extreme political nature of the Supreme Court today, all they need do is look at the number of 5-4 decisions on issues of import—with the same Justices split ideological between liberal and conservative views.
The opinions rendered in this case had many flaws when it came to deciding the constitutionality of secession, and any one of the more serious problems found in the majority’s opinion should be enough to remove the cloak of respectability from this dubious opinion. While there was no evidence of such, some believe this case was manufactured for the sole purpose of legitimizing the Civil War. But, speculation aside, it does appear that so soon after the Civil War there was desperation by those involved in the horrific and unconstitutional actions of the Lincoln administration, including Chief Justice Chase, to look for any opportunity that might justify their misdeeds. Texas v. White offered that opportunity, regardless of the convoluted and flawed opinion of the Court’s majority.
When you’re having to go to words used in Tombstone, I’ve clearly won.
Big freakin' surprise there. One of these days you'll amaze all of us and post comments from someone who knows what they're talking about.
It will fit in your collection nicely...
CUL8R
I’m liking how you wannabe idol-worshipers keep throwing Obama at me like that matters. It just shows me that you have NOTHING to come back with other than the typical bluster and stupidity.
I won, the UNITED STATES won the war, and your idols are both traitors and losers.
Ha ha.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.