Bill Description: House Bill 177 declares gold and silver legal tender in the state of Idaho.
Rating: +2
Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the United States Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the US Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?
House Bill 177 upholds the spirit of Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which allows states to make “gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Scholars have debated the constitutionality of paper money for 150 years. Some argue the gold and silver clause requires states to reject the federal government’s push toward unsound monetary policies, such as the fiat money used today. This would be consistent with the founders’ vision, as James Madison stated in Federalist 44:
“The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied….”
On another note, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution makes it clear that Congress, not the states, has the power to coin money and regulate its value. This provision made it possible to conduct interstate transactions. Though Idaho must recognize gold and silver legal tender under this bill, the state cannot mint an “Idaho” coin. House Bill 177 is careful to avoid this issue by merely recognizing in statute that gold and silver bullion and coin are legal tender — whether minted by the federal government or privately. This legislation is consistent with and promotes current conservative constitutional scholarship.
(+1)
Does it increase barriers to entry into the market? Examples include occupational licensure, the minimum wage, and restrictions on home businesses. Conversely, does it remove barriers to entry into the market?
This legislation reduces barriers in the free market by allowing individuals and businesses to transact in a sound currency as an alternative to the dollar. Though it is true that private parties could mutually consent to settle debts in gold and silver today, numerous requirements make this impractical. These include treating gold and silver as a commodity, which then requires the buyer to also settle the taxes applied to the gains from the sale. Making physical gold and silver legal tender simplifies transactions in this sound currency, reducing barriers to those who wish to do business in this way.
(+1)
Does it give government any new, additional, or expanded power to prohibit, restrict, or regulate activities in the free market? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce government intervention in the market?
House Bill 177 includes language that protects businesses who choose not to settle debts with gold or silver. The bill states, “no person or other entity may compel another person to or other entity to tender or accept gold or silver coin or specie unless agreed upon by the parties.” There is an exception for contracts that include such requirements.
Though it doesn’t reduce or eliminate intervention in the free market, it maintains protection for businesses who choose not to exchange a gold or silver currency in favor of other legal tender.
(0)
