Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Clawcoins, post: 3613002, member: 77814&quot;]what &quot;debates in Congress in 1981&quot; ?</p><p><br /></p><p>If you read the same article you linked to you would read &quot;In January, the Copper and Brass Fabricators Council - whose 23 members include the major alloy strip producers - sued the Treasury on the ground that it could not alter the one-cent piece so extensively without Congressional approval.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>IF you actually read the resultant D.C. Court of Appeals decision it was stated</p><p>&quot;The district court, <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1430441/copper-brass-fabricators-v-dept-of-treasury/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1430441/copper-brass-fabricators-v-dept-of-treasury/" rel="nofollow">524 F. Supp. 945</a>, held that while appellant&#039;s alleged economic injury was sufficient to meet the constitutional requirement of an &quot;injury in fact,&quot; appellant was not within the &quot;zone of interests&quot; protected, benefited or regulated by the statute, 31 U.S.C. § 317(b), and consequently lacked standing to challenge the Treasury Department&#039;s decision. We agree. In light of our recent decision in Control Data Corp. v. Baldridge, <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/392798/control-data-corporation-v-malcolm-baldrige-secretary-of-commerce-sperry/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/392798/control-data-corporation-v-malcolm-baldrige-secretary-of-commerce-sperry/" rel="nofollow">655 F.2d 283</a> (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>also</p><p>&quot;Our review of the relevant statutory provision, section 317(b), and its legislative history reveals no indication that Congress intended to protect, benefit or regulate appellant. Section 317(b), on its face, reveals no such purpose; rather, it clearly purports to grant the Secretary of the Treasury discretion to prescribe the copper and zinc composition &quot;as he may deem appropriate&quot; and as &quot;is necessary in order to assure an adequate supply of coins to meet national needs.&quot;&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>also</p><p>&quot; Prior to the enactment of section 317(b) in 1974, the law did not provide the Secretary of the Treasury with discretion to alter the copper content of pennies; it merely prescribed that pennies would be composed of 95% copper and 5% zinc. In the face of rising copper prices and penny hoarding by the public, legislation was introduced which would vest discretion in the Treasury Department to change the copper content and substitute a less costly metal in response to the above trends.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>also</p><p>&quot;(in 1974 and before) While Congress thus took into consideration the interests of vending machine operators and children who might ingest coins in amending section 317, there is no indication that Congress intended this legislation to benefit, protect or regulate the copper industry.<a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/404962/copper-brass-fabricators-council-inc-v-department-of-the-treasury/#fn5" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/404962/copper-brass-fabricators-council-inc-v-department-of-the-treasury/#fn5" rel="nofollow">5</a> Rather, the economic interests of the copper industry appear to be directly at odds with the &quot;national needs&quot; compelling the enactment of section 317(b). It is clear from the legislative history of section 317(b) that, in the face of rising copper prices and the resulting hoarding of pennies by the public, Congress intended to grant the Treasury Department broad discretion to decrease the copper content of the penny &quot;to meet national needs.&quot;&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>also</p><p>&quot;Section 317(c) gave the Secretary authority to alter the composition of the penny to &quot;such other metallic composition as he shall determine&quot; if the use of copper became impracticable and if certain procedural prerequisites were met. This section expired on December 31, 1977. Appellant argues that the time-limited, broad authorization in 317(c) suggests that 317(b) should be given a narrower reading. We disagree. The apparent legislative scheme evidenced by these two subsections was to permit, in subsection (c), temporary flexibility to the Treasury due to uncertainty over the technical feasibility of producing an economical copper-zinc penny which possessed the necessary manufacturing and circulation qualities. It was believed that the lowest copper content technologically possible to achieve-considering damage to the dies and the weight of the coin-was 70%. Apparently, therefore, subsection (c) permitted temporary flexibility to explore alternatives to the copper-zinc penny, provided for in subsection (b), in light of these technical and practical considerations. Appellant has presented us with no evidence to the contrary&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>at what time was there debates in Congress?</p><p>none maybe ?</p><p><br /></p><p>please link and reference accurate information.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Congress in previous legislation gave the Treasury the ability to change the content of the penny and also suggested the use of aluminum going back to 1974. </p><p>([USER=103887]@funnycoins[/USER]&nbsp; you should know this from your other post about 1974 aluminum cents ==&gt; <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/1983d-brass-penny.268447/#post-3613004" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/1983d-brass-penny.268447/#post-3613004">https://www.cointalk.com/threads/1983d-brass-penny.268447/#post-3613004</a>)</p><p>&quot; In 1974 there was another price increase in copper, at a time when the West Point Mint began coining cents (without mintmarks, mintages lumped in with Philadelphia). An experiment was launched to strike the 1974 Lincoln cents on aluminum planchets.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>The Treasury, back in 1974 would not have been able to do this without the legislative approval first.&nbsp; This was the reason for Congresses creation of 317(b) in 1974, distinctly to allow the Treasury to modify the cent.</p><p><br /></p><p>Only the &quot;Copper and Brass Fabricators Council&quot; debated this as they were going to lose sales.&nbsp; Congress did not debate it in 1981.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in