Awesome... does this mean hookers are now required to accept mastercard?
Well that is secondhand goods, so yes.
Well that is secondhand goods, so yes.
Fascinating. Does the same goes for banks? We know that Wall Street banks are laundering many billions of drug dollars each year (not to mention other economic crime). Are they prepared to lose that revenue? Or are the politicians only gunning for easy target small fry again?
CPA
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 30,322
- 4
- 0
sactoking
Diamond Member
- Sep 24, 2007
- 7,525
- 2,727
- 136
Again, the assertion that it is illegal is wrong. Here is the relevant case law.
Tennessee Scrap Recyclers Ass'n v. Bredesen, C.A.6 (Tenn.),2009 442 at 458.
Gensee Scrap & Tin Baling Co., Inc. v. City of Rochester, W.D.N.Y.2008, 558 F.Supp.2d 432 at 436.
Metal Management Mississippi, Inc. v. Barbour, S.D.Miss., unreported 2008, sums it up nicely.
"State and federal court jurisprudence has held, though, that while the states must not infringe upon Congress' exclusive right to declare what constitutes legal tender, a state may declare what manner of payment of legal tender is permissible or required for particular types of transactions"
/thread
Tennessee Scrap Recyclers Ass'n v. Bredesen, C.A.6 (Tenn.),2009 442 at 458.
Gensee Scrap & Tin Baling Co., Inc. v. City of Rochester, W.D.N.Y.2008, 558 F.Supp.2d 432 at 436.
Metal Management Mississippi, Inc. v. Barbour, S.D.Miss., unreported 2008, sums it up nicely.
"State and federal court jurisprudence has held, though, that while the states must not infringe upon Congress' exclusive right to declare what constitutes legal tender, a state may declare what manner of payment of legal tender is permissible or required for particular types of transactions"
/thread
Last edited:
Don't get me wrong. It IS a poorly designed and misguided law that is more or less entirely impossible to enforce.
Ns1
No Lifer
- Jun 17, 2001
- 55,413
- 1,570
- 126
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,512
- 21
- 81
Had you started with citations and not unsupported assertions, this would have ended much sooner.
That said, I disagree with the Gensee Scrap court's contention that, "a distinction between an ordinance directing that a business must accept a certain form of payment, and an ordinance providing that a business may not accept cash ... is a distinction without a difference." While I accept that persuasive precedent will likely win the day, I am not at all convinced that the court got it right in these cases. Of course, that may be why I'm not a judge.
ZV
Last edited:
TallBill
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2001
- 46,044
- 62
- 91
It is one thing to write a law and another thing to enforce it. Why write a law like that and exclude pawn shops? Maybe the law is aiming to do away with street vendors or something like that??
her209
No Lifer
- Oct 11, 2000
- 56,352
- 11
- 0
Genesse is the leading case on this specific issue. There is nothing higher than the 6th circuits citation of it.
The root issue has been decided, and that is decades of cases at the federal and state level interpret a check or other instruments drawn on US currency as valid forms of payments where legal tender is required.
Further cases built upon that that allows state and federal entities to require payment by check. Even so far as allowing states to require payment by check for taxes.
This is an extension on those cases. So far its been adopted by different federal district courts through out the country, as well as the 6th circuit. There is also a case pending before the 3rd.
Mississippi Metal Management v Barbour is a federal district case inside the fifth circuit. Its a very lengthy and detailed opinion, more so for a district court opinion. Mississippi Metal is very similar to this case. IE: LA isn't the first state that requires businesses to use checks(etc) for transactions. Mississippi regulates what form of payments scrapers can use. IE: Mississippi forbids scrappers to use cash. the State of Mississippi uses the same justifications and reasoning as LA does. Mississippi Metal Management says its completely constitutional. That case was 3 years ago.
Now there could be a constitutional claim with the LA law, but that would be the regulation isn't narrowly tailored and is both over and under inclusive. It is pretty broad, and they don't include pawn shops, but it probably isn't going to be a sufficient argument because in this case it would be weak to argue that under the 14th and even if it was strong the courts would use a rational basis test. All other constitutional claims(sec 1 art 10, commerce clause, dormant commerce clause, takings, etc etc) are out right rejected in the three aforementioned cases.
The root issue has been decided, and that is decades of cases at the federal and state level interpret a check or other instruments drawn on US currency as valid forms of payments where legal tender is required.
Further cases built upon that that allows state and federal entities to require payment by check. Even so far as allowing states to require payment by check for taxes.
This is an extension on those cases. So far its been adopted by different federal district courts through out the country, as well as the 6th circuit. There is also a case pending before the 3rd.
Mississippi Metal Management v Barbour is a federal district case inside the fifth circuit. Its a very lengthy and detailed opinion, more so for a district court opinion. Mississippi Metal is very similar to this case. IE: LA isn't the first state that requires businesses to use checks(etc) for transactions. Mississippi regulates what form of payments scrapers can use. IE: Mississippi forbids scrappers to use cash. the State of Mississippi uses the same justifications and reasoning as LA does. Mississippi Metal Management says its completely constitutional. That case was 3 years ago.
Now there could be a constitutional claim with the LA law, but that would be the regulation isn't narrowly tailored and is both over and under inclusive. It is pretty broad, and they don't include pawn shops, but it probably isn't going to be a sufficient argument because in this case it would be weak to argue that under the 14th and even if it was strong the courts would use a rational basis test. All other constitutional claims(sec 1 art 10, commerce clause, dormant commerce clause, takings, etc etc) are out right rejected in the three aforementioned cases.
Last edited:
sactoking
Diamond Member
- Sep 24, 2007
- 7,525
- 2,727
- 136
There isn't anything other than the Supreme Court Legal Tender cases from the 1800's because this isn't an issue of constitutionality. Sec 1 Art 10 is the only thing applicable and it is not directly on topic.
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.
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.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter