Justice Sam Spade delivers the opinion of the Court, in which the Chief Justice Bullmoose88 joins.Introduction
The question before this Court today is whether the Freedom of Currency Amendment passed by the voters of the Southeast Region is repugnant to the Constitution.
For reasons as shall be stated below, we hold that:
(1) Sections 1(b) and 1(c) of the Freedom of Currency Amendment violate the Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 prohibition against Region-issued currency.
(2) No constitutional or statutory provision requires us to find section 1(a) of the Freedom of Currency Amendment invalid or preempted, so we therefore hold it a valid application of Regional police power.I.
On April 4, 2009, Governor AH Duke opened the voting booth for three different Southeast voter initiatives. One of these was the "Freedom of Currency Amendment". On April 9, 2009, the Freedom of Currency Amendment passed by a 4-1 margin and was certified by Governor Duke. Later in that day, the Attorney General brought an action to this Court asserting that the Freedom of Currency Amendment violated the Constitution of Atlasia. We certified this question and heard arguments for both sides for and against its constitutionality.
Petitioner argues that the Constitution of Atlasia references the federally recognized currency, the Dollar, as established by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia and the sole currency of this country pursuant to its powers under Article I, Section 5, Clause 8. It also claims that Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 explicitly forbids any regional government from instituting currencies of their own.
On the other hand, Respondent argues that the currency of “dixies” authorized by the Freedom of Currency Amendment is not legal tender and is enforced on a voluntary basis, such as to avoid conflict with the Senate’s sole power to "establish coin and currency" as the sole legal tender of Atlasia under Article I, Section 5, Clause 8.
Furthermore, Respondent also urges us to hold that Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 does not apply because the “circulation” of “dixies” within the Southeast Region does not mean that the Southeast “issues” currency, as is forbidden under the Article. Rather, Respondent asserts that a separate entity, “Atlasian Security Services” will issue the aforementioned “dixies” to the populace.
II.
We think Sections 1(b) and 1(c) of the Freedom of Currency Amendment are easily dispatched by examining the first part of Article I, Section 7, Clause 2.
Section 1(b), the controlling section, states that "The government of the Dirty South shall circulate currency called "dixies". To “circulate” means “to move around”, “to disseminate” or “to spread widely among persons or place”. Obviously, in order for Section 1(b) to have any meaning, some object or thing must be “circulated”. The Freedom of Currency Amendment describes this thing as a “currency” called the “dixie”, which is exchangeable “for a[n] [undefined] pegged amount of gold at any time.”
Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 states, in relevant part, that "No Region may issue Coin or Currency..." To “issue” means “an act of circulating…” “from a specified source”. Clearly, to be "circulated" the “dixie” must be “issued” from some source. The plain text of the Amendment does not state where this source is, and on its face we would assume that this source is the Southeast Region.
However, counsel for the Southeast Region has averred that Atlasian Security Services will issue “dixies” for the Southeast Region, even though the wording of the Amendment does not give Atlasian Security Services such power nor do any regulations promulgated by the Regional government delegate such authority.
Counsel, in its infinite wisdom, apparently thinks that this distinction between the Southeast Region and Atlasian Security Services actually makes a difference. We disagree. While it is clear under the Constitution that the Southeast Region may not issue “dixies” as a currency, if, as counsel asserts, Atlasian Security Services issues this currency pursuant to the Freedom of Currency Amendment, it will do so with the imprimatur of the regional government. That is sufficient for us to determine that “state action” exists which makes, for all intents and purposes, the act of “issuance” by the Southeast Region or Atlasian Security Services one in the same.
Accordingly, since Section 1(c) cannot function in isolation without the mandate of Section 1(b), we find both clauses to be invalid under Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 as a unconstitutional issuance of “coin or currency” by the Southeast Region.
We note, but do not address at this time, any arguments about whether the “dixie” constitutes “legal tender” so as to violate the second part of Article I, Section 7, Clause 2. Additionally, we do not address any arguments or statements concerning the application or effect of Article I, Section 5, Clause 8.
III
Section 1(a) of the Freedom of Currency Amendment states that “[t]he government of the Dirty South shall gradually take Atlasian dollars out of circulation within the Dirty South.”
Neither Petitioner nor Respondent provides us with any relevant arguments as to this provision’s legitimacy. Our search of the Constitution and Statute shows no instance where the federal government has restricted the right of the Regions to take currency out of circulation. Moreover, we find that this provision can function in isolation without Sections 1(b) and 1(c) and its creation of “dixies” as a currency issued unconstitutionally by the Southeast. We may question the wisdom of such actions but we are not inclined to overrule the wishes of the citizenry of the Southeast Region.
Consequently, we uphold Section 1(a) of the Freedom of Currency Amendment as a valid application of Regional police power.
We note, in a somewhat related vein, that the federal government has the power to "regulate" the coin and currency of the Republic of Atlasia. If the federal government were to preempt the Southeast Region's ability to withdraw dollars out of circulation, we would, upon legal action, review that action's constitutionality under the strictures of Article I, Section 5, Clause 8.
Conclusion
In short, we strike down Sections 1(b) and 1(c) of the Freedom of Currency Act as invalid under Article I, Section 7 , Clause 2 of the Constitution and uphold Section 1(a) of the Freedom of Currency Act as a valid exercise of Regional police power.
So ordered.
