One of those distractions was the President’s “order”* to cease minting the penny, which costs around 300% of its face value to produce. Supporters and opponents of the president are arguing for and against this action. While it might appear to make sense (no pun intended) at a superficial level, within the context of the administration’s tidal wave of orders, memos, and notices, this one seemingly innocuous—and unoriginal—idea is serving its intended purpose: not to affect actual change (again, no pun intended), but to serve as just another distraction. The more people are regurgitating arguments for and against abolishing the one-cent coin, the less they’re talking about the erosion of civil rights, wealth inequality, and an actual constitutional crisis that may be unfolding before our eyes.
This is not about any one Executive Order. It’s about the blatant disregard for the separation of powers—not just by the President, but those in his party ostensibly in control of the House and Senate. Congress has the prerogative of delegating authority to the Executive branch through legislation. When the President starts taking actions that extend beyond that authority, we have a problem. When Congress is made aware of it and consciously chooses to do nothing, essentially ceding its authority to the President through inaction—some might call it a dereliction of duty—it’s up to the courts to reign in the administration. Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn’t quite explain what to do when the President ignores the other branches of the government.
Some will still argue that the President shouldn’t have to follow every single law, especially concerning little things like the material cost of striking a penny. “We can make an exception for that, right?” they’ll ask.
Let’s consider just one possible outcome of normalizing a selective disregard for the Constitutional framework that’s been in place since 1789. If we, the people—be it through Congress or the courts—say, “The President can ignore the law concerning the penny,” what’s to stop him from using it as a tacit endorsement to ignore the law wherever and whenever he wants?
When we, the people, see what he’s doing and then complain about it, his defense will most likely consist of throwing the people’s own words back at us:
“You said, ‘The President can ignore the law…’”
The rest of the original sentence's context doesn’t matter to him. It never did, and it never will. I’m willing to bet all the pennies on that.
