A Stitch in Haste

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 5 and 6 give Congress the power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures[.]"

Does that mean that Congress also has the power to prohibit the destruction or mutilation of money -- or its export outside the United States?

Soaring metals prices mean that the value of the metal in pennies and nickels exceeds the face value of the coins. Based on current metals prices, the value of the metal in a nickel is now 6.99 cents, while the penny's metal is worth 1.12 cents, according to the U.S. Mint.
...
Under the new rules, it is illegal to melt pennies and nickels. It is also illegal to export the coins for melting. Travelers may legally carry up to $5 in 1- and 5-cent coins out of the USA or ship $100 of the coins abroad "for legitimate coinage and numismatic purposes."

Of course, one wonders whether the costs of extraction would keep such "reverse seignorage" from becoming profitable. I'm pretty sure it would.

One way or the other, the provision of legal tender is a public good, yet one can also argue that something that belongs to me belongs to me and that if I want to destroy it, then I have that right.*

So which is it -- anti-libertarian outrage or entirely legitimate exercise of government power?

More thoughts at Slashdot, Boing Boing.

---

Rightly or wrongly, an answer has been around for almost a century:

Conceding the title of the owner of such coins, yet there is attached to such ownership those limitations which public policy may require by reason of their quality as a legal tender and as a medium of exchange. These limitations are due to the fact that public law gives to such coinage a value which does not attach as a mere consequence of intrinsic value. Their quality as a legal tender is an attribute of law aside from their bullion value. They bear, therefore, the impress of sovereign power which fixes value and authorizes their use in exchange. As an incident, government may punish defacement and mutilation, and constitute any such act, when fraudulently done, a misdemeanor.

However unwise a law may be, aimed at the exportation of such coins, in the face of the axioms against obstructing the free flow of commerce, there can be no serious doubt but that the power to coin money includes the power to prevent its outflow from the country of its origin. To justify the exercise of such a power it is only necessary that it shall appear that the means are reasonably adapted to conserve the general public interest, and are not an arbitrary interference with private rights of contract or property.

Ling Su Fan v. U.S., 218 U.S. 302 (1910)

That case involved Philippine coins back when the Philippines was a United States colony, but the constitutional reasoning is sufficiently robust to still apply.

For Discussion: How does the Necessary & Proper Clause strengthen or weaken the reasoning in Ling Su Fan?

---

*Does the owner of a "priceless" piece of art have the right to destroy it rather than sell it? What about historic preservation of landmark buildings?