12.07.2015 Views

US Government Debt Different - Finance Department - University of ...

US Government Debt Different - Finance Department - University of ...

US Government Debt Different - Finance Department - University of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Charles W. Mooney, Jror gold coin. In 1933, early in the Roosevelt administration, Congresspassed a Joint Resolution providing that a contractual requirementthat payments be made in gold or specific coin or currencywas against public policy, effectively nullifying such gold clauses. 29The resolution further provided that any such obligations could besatisfied by the payment <strong>of</strong> any currency that was legal tender, dollarfor dollar. 30189Perry’s plurality opinion on behalf <strong>of</strong> four Justices, 31 confirmed theunconstitutionality <strong>of</strong> a law that would relieve the U.S. from its obligationto pay federal debt according to its terms. 32 Mr. Perry wasthe holder <strong>of</strong> a U.S. government bond that made principal and interest“payable in United States gold coin <strong>of</strong> the present standard<strong>of</strong> value.” 33 Perry sued to recover the amount in dollars equivalentto gold at earlier exchange rates under the gold clause term <strong>of</strong> thebond. The plurality opinion recognized that the Constitution empowersCongress to borrow money, which includes the right “to fixthe amount to be borrowed and the terms <strong>of</strong> payment.” 34 However,the plurality held the Joint Resolution to be unconstitutional ins<strong>of</strong>aras it applied to gold clauses in federal obligations. The Court reliedin part on Section Four. As it explained:We regard [Section Four] . . . as confirmatory <strong>of</strong> a fundamentalprinciple, which applies as well to the government bondsin question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress, asto those issued before the Amendment was adopted. Nor canwe perceive any reason for not considering the expression “thevalidity <strong>of</strong> the public debt” as embracing whatever concerns theintegrity <strong>of</strong> the public obligations. 35The Court also relied directly on the fundamental principle confirmedby Section Four. It reasoned that “[h]aving this power to au-29 H.R.J. Res. 192, 73d Cong., 48 Stat. 112-13 (1933) (enacted).30 Id.31 Mr. Justice Stone wrote a concurring opinion, discussed infra, thereby providinga 5-4 majority.32 Perry, 294 U.S. at 353-54.33 See, e.g., Perry, 294 U.S. at 347 (quoting bond terms).34 Perry, 294 U.S. at 351.35 Id. at 354.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!