I'm not against the end result, but I was taught that we lived in a Republic, not a dictatorship. This should have been done legislatively, not by executive fiat.
I think that's a bit beside the point. We all use physical money. An executive that respected the vox populi would leave this for the legislature, where everybody has elected representatives that can debate, wheel-and-deal, and act on that voice of the people.
The President is also an elected representative. This isn't beside the point: if it's not legislatively mandated, this is American democracy working as designed.
If the voice of the people is the concern, there should just be a referendum. I for one would vote to save the penny.
As I understand it congress mandates which coins _can_ be minted and their specifications (denomination/physical size/markings/etc) then leaves it up to the Secretary of the Treasury to determine how many need to be produced to meet demand.
I didn’t know there was internet censorship at Hitler’s time, preventing people from talking about the dictatorship. Can you back it up with a source? I think you might have to use a LLM to find one.
Weird choice of example when there are so many relevant examples happening right now. Even worse the US is currently suppressing speech and actions that protest foreign countries (and our support for them). Anti-BDS laws should surely be unconstitutional yet they stand. Detaining and deporting legal residents for their speech. Pulling unrelated funding from universities for not policing student speech. The US isn't particularly good about press freedom either.
* The US constitution has an executive branch consisting of a single person, the President. (The other two branches are judicial and legislative)
* That person is given broad authority that includes the treasury, commanding the military, pardoning power, appointing a cabinet, etc.
* Delegating this is well within the power of the executive
That said we're allowed to complain about these things and a big enough protest could have the desired effect. I love pennies myself, but I'm not interested enough to leave my Go compiler long enough to do so.
Very incorrect, the US constitution states "[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures"
Congress, not the executive. And the supreme court has ruled that power to be exclusive
1. The states never had the right to secede. U.S. Constitution, Article VI: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Article I, Section 10: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation .... No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War ..."
It is abundantly clear in the records of the Constitutional Convention, the text of the Constitution, the debates on ratification, and the Federalist Papers that the intent of the Constitution was to create a supreme national government, not a league of states.
2. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to regulate currency. Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have power ... To coin Money [and] regulate the Value thereof ..."
> We stopped being a republic after the civil war removed state rights to secession
A republic is a government where elected representatives make laws. The right of sub-national units to secede isn't a part of the equation, as far as I know.
I mean a republic could have a constitution where states have the right to secede. Wikipedia tells me the USSR is one such republic. But that's not part of the definition.
