The NotHaus case turns partly on the constitutionality of a legislative statute that reads”
“Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
The term “current money” is ambiguous. I doubt that it is defined in the U.S. Code. It might be circularly defined as “lawful money,” which is also ambiguous and undefined in the Code. That aside, this statute forbids anyone from circulating any coin of any design whatever as money or means of payment.
How can such a statute possibly be constitutional? Congress has power to coin Money, but it doesn’t have exclusive or monopoly power granted to it in the Constitution. Putting aside that document, such a statute is completely inconsistent with monetary freedom. How can U.S. officials call this a free country if there is no monetary freedom?
The NotHaus case turns on jury nullification, in view of the unreasonableness of this statute. It is a law that contradicts the most basic of rights. The court instructed the jury to follow the law, no matter what. The jury didn’t nullify. It obeyed the instructions. That is truly sad. I hope that NotHaus finds grounds to appeal and finds lawyers who know how to argue on grounds that will gain a hearing in higher courts and win in those courts.
