Paper Money and the Original Understanding of the Coinage Clause
Posted: 8 Sep 2008
Date Written: September 5, 2008
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court decided the Legal Tender Cases, holding that Congress could authorize legal tender paper money in addition to metallic coin. In recent years, some commentators have argued that this holding was incorrect as a matter of original understanding or original meaning, but that any other holding would be absolutely inconsistent with modern needs. They further argue that the impracticality of functioning without paper money demonstrates that originalism is not a workable method of constitutional interpretation.
Those who rely on the Legal Tender Cases to discredit originalism are, however, in error. This Article shows that the holding, although not all the reasoning, of those cases was fully consistent with the original understanding of the Coinage Clause. This Article tells the intriguing story of Colonial America's extraordinary monetary innovations, examines contemporaneous law and language, and shows how the paper money question was addressed during the framing and ratification of the Constitution.
Keywords: Constitutional Law, money, paper money, original understanding, original meaning, original intent, coinage, coins, constitutional history
JEL Classification: B00, E50, K00, K19
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation