Thread by @TheStalwart

I've been coinpilled since at least 2013.

But after speaking with Rohan I went from thinking "This is kind of a fluke legal technicality" to thinking "This is unambiguously sound, legal, not even a close call, and not even a significant stretching of the law's intent"

https://twitter.com/BennettTomlin/status/1443661887472820239

I previously thought that the law accidentally worded in such a way as to allow a law on collectibles to enable a trillion dollar coin.

But I no longer think that's the case. It's wording is intentional, and designed to increase potential mint seignorage revenue.

Of course, the designers of the law didn't contemplate it being used as a break-the-glass solution to the debt ceiling.

But the flexibility it affords the Treasury secretary (on coin denomination) is clearly no accident of wording.

And since the mint is a profit source for the Treasury (not unlike the Fed, in the sense that all Fed profits are remitted back to the Treasury), it just doesn't seem like a close call that the law can be used in this way.

And again, I'd just point out that @PhilipNDiehl -- who authored the law's precise wording along with former Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware -- came to the same conclusion, upon being presented with @mucha_carlos' interpretation of the statute.

https://twitter.com/TheStalwart/status/1443265298602373126