31–40 of 111 posts
Wouldn't this violate the federal Constitution? > No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money ; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts ; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. -Article I, Section 10, Clause 1
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, she is a member of the terrorist group Oath Keepers.
I was really confused for a moment, I confused Oath Keepers for Promise Keepers... > Oath Keepers is an American far-right[1] anti-government militia[1][2] whose members claim to be defending the Constitution of the United States.[3] It encourages its members to disobey orders which they believe would violate the U.S. Constitution. Research on their membership determined that two thirds of the Oath Keepers are former…
Wouldn't this violate the federal Constitution? > No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money ; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts ; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. -Article I, Section 10, Clause 1
> make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts Well, they've already violated this by accepting USD, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can just do BTC too. To strike this down the courts would need a lawsuit, though, and I'm not sure who could claim damages. > coin money I take this to mean issuing a currency, which they are not doing here since they don't control BTC.
Standing would presumably be with the party which refused bitcoin payment in satisfaction of a debt.
Wouldn't this violate the federal Constitution? > No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money ; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts ; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. -Article I, Section 10, Clause 1
> make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts Well, they've already violated this by accepting USD, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can just do BTC too. To strike this down the courts would need a lawsuit, though, and I'm not sure who could claim damages. > coin money I take this to mean issuing a currency, which they are not doing here since they don't control BTC.
... no, the US dollar is a Federal construction, created by Congress. Congress is not bound by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 - only the states.
Guess this would mean one could settle state taxes with Bitcoin? That's sort of neat. Also means someone could have a nice dinner and then refuse to pay with anything but Bitcoin, at least under state law, which sounds less fun.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am totally against all things Bitcoin, however, it's not coined exclusive in the us and the constitution is not immutable, else it would be a very bad document that can't get with the times. Anything in the constitution is not canonical forever.
> Anything in the constitution is not canonical forever. It is, however, canonical until amended or SCOTUS interprets it away. Constitutionally, it appears quite clear Arizona can't do this currently , and the law as a result would almost certainly be immediately stayed and struck down if passed.
Wouldn't this violate the federal Constitution? > No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money ; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts ; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. -Article I, Section 10, Clause 1
> make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts Well, they've already violated this by accepting USD, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can just do BTC too. To strike this down the courts would need a lawsuit, though, and I'm not sure who could claim damages. > coin money I take this to mean issuing a currency, which they are not doing here since they don't control BTC.
Don't get too riled up about this. "Arizona" introduced nothing. State Senator Rogers did. It's probably not going to make it out of committee in the AZ legislature. I'd be surprised if anyone took it seriously. Edit: maybe someone knowledgeable can chime in; I don't think states can even do this. The US Government determines what is legal tender in the US.
It's just synecdoche.