• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

law bans cash transactions for secondhand goods.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,293
740
126
I think there is a constitutional claim for being overbroad, but do keep in mind that none of those cases you cited preclude other constitutional claims for this particular case. LA is in the 5th Circuit, which does fancy itself more important than the 11th, so if nothing else, they'd probably take a look. It's not unusual for the 5th and 11th circuits to come out differently, either. I believe the cases you cited (haven't had time to read all of them yet) all deal with scrappers, too. A case dealing with the LA law would obviously be distinguishable on the facts, enough so to look at other constitutional claims.

I don't do constitutional or appellate law, nor am I licensed in LA or any jurisdiction within 1000 miles of it. Just my conjecture on the subject.
Originally IIRC, people asserted a state mandating a private business to not accept cash was violated statutory law and was unconstitutional. The assertion appears to be incorrect. This isn't a slam dunk case against LA, it probably isn't even a 50/50 case.

The three cases, only one is an appellate, the 6th citing the SDNY case. The Mississippi case, a 5th district, cites both and finds them both persuasive when denying injunctive relief against the State of Mississippi. There appears to be a similar case before the 3rd. And yes the facts are different, one applies to a smaller subsection, where as this applies to a broader subsection but, these cases are just logical extensions of earlier rulings.

Also, since the federal government agrees withs with the current interpretations, they won't file suit against LA. Which means a private person with standing and deep pockets is going to have to take up the issue and take it through the entire appellate process with a very very uncertain outcome, probably much less than 50/50 chance of success. And even if they are successful, LA could still come back and pass a law that does much the same thing and meet whatever standard the courts come up with.

The best I could see happening is the law has to be narrowed to only second hand businesses and not to private individuals(yes I know businesses/corporations are viewed as individuals, but they are regulate much more than a real person). But then again I am not a con law expert.
 
Last edited:

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,293
740
126
it's not. This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.
He gives it to you on credit in exchange that you promise to pay -- debt is created.
You give him the money in payment for that debt.
Read the entire thread because that is NOT how it works.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,525
42
86
It is just shockingly sad how many people here falsely believe they know facts.

At the end of the day, I don't expect this law to be enforced, I expect it to be repealed.

So, to those of particular here, keep up the loud ramblings on things you don't know.

Good day :D
 
May 16, 2000
13,529
0
0
That'll be an epic SCOTUS case. I have nothing but cash, and refuse to use anything else. If the government forces me into it, I'll take up arms against them before I'll use anything BUT cash. If they want revolution they're certainly on the right track.
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,392
31
91
I doubt this law would withstand scrutiny in federal court as it seems to be preempted by 31 U.S.C. 5103 which establishes that US Currency is legal tender for any transaction.
It does not establish any such thing.

§ 5103. LEGAL TENDER
United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
This is not a debt, public charge, tax, or due.

Just as a business can regulate what currency it will deal in, the government can also regulate what currency that business can deal in.
 
Last edited:

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,325
126
It does not establish any such thing.



This is not a debt, public charge, tax, or due.

Just as a business can regulate what currency it will deal in, the government can also regulate what currency that business can deal in.
I bet it won't take long for someone to figure out a very quick and short form that turns it into a debt that can then be paid in cash a minute later...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY