Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Promise Keepers performs their acts of terrorism the proper way. Through campaign donations and politicking.
Arizona Introduces a bill to make Bitcoin Legal Tender [pdf]
61–70 of 111 posts
Re: Arizona Introduces a bill to make Bitcoin Legal Tender [pdf]
#62Earlier 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…
Couldn't that also be stated as "It encourages its members to obey the law"?
Re: Arizona Introduces a bill to make Bitcoin Legal Tender [pdf]
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
The required interpretation appears readily available. Arizona wouldn't issue anything, but they'll gladly accept it.
Re: Arizona Introduces a bill to make Bitcoin Legal Tender [pdf]
#64Under capitalisms fourth epoch, neoliberalism, there simply isnt much left for the state to really do. Its completely divorced by monetary policy save for ardent enforcement of austerity or the class structure through physical means, and its only ever called upon each decade to bless the rescue of lumbering appendages such as trade and banking when they fail. The state runs the military but has no real say in foreign trade, save when its called upon to enact the will of its true constituency (the capital class) in affecting the firm will of globalization in its varied permutations. the state runs education only in that it may abdicate itself from the role through privatization, and the state has a say in healthcare only in that its made compulsory its purchase through law. its regulatory agency has largely been diluted to a brisk rubber stamp in all but the most arcane function.
So left to their own devices, states must remain relevant in that they exude autonomy and purpose, lest their citizens grow restless and apathetic to the call of democracy twice or thrice a year. a law here, an edict there, some popcorn and theatricality always help...even if its ultimately at the expense of the tax payer through lawsuits and defeat, it at least keeps them interested and entertained. it acts as a bundle of shiny car keys to a child, lest apathy at the polls completely delegitimize the state as an organism.
Re: Arizona Introduces a bill to make Bitcoin Legal Tender [pdf]
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
I'm curious now... could a state just stop accepting USD and demand gold and silver.
(And that could actually happen. Say the state decides that they don't want to do X, but state or federal law says they have to. Well, fine, but there's a fee for X. The state just requires that you have to pay it in gold or silver.)
Re: Arizona Introduces a bill to make Bitcoin Legal Tender [pdf]
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Well, they've already violated this by accepting USD ... 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.
Still though, the Dollar isn't listed there as a tender that the state can utilize. I don't think "make legal tender" means "create" but rather "accept as".
This part of the Constitution limits what states can do. It doesn't limit what the U.S. Congress can do, and the U.S. Congress has passed a law that makes U.S. coins and currency legal tender at what is currently 31 U.S. Code § 5103.
Federal law takes precedence over state law, and therefore it is the U.S. government that has decided, on Arizona's behalf, what constitutes legal tender.
The same section forbids states from making treaties with foreign powers; something that the U.S. government does all the time.
Re: Arizona Introduces a bill to make Bitcoin Legal Tender [pdf]
#67Guess 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.
Unless Arizona has a law that says businesses have to accept all forms of legal tender as payment, I would expect that businesses would not be forced to accept Bitcoin as payment. Consider cash: > There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own p…
Re: Arizona Introduces a bill to make Bitcoin Legal Tender [pdf]
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>It encourages its members to disobey orders which they believe would violate the U.S. Constitution. Couldn't that also be stated as "It encourages its members to obey the law"?
It's a https://www.theonion.com/area-man-passionate-defender-of-wha... scenario.
I can rightly claim that the First Amendment seems to mean I can found a religion that features human sacrifices at church every Sunday, but I'll be fairly rapidly shut down if I try it.
Re: Arizona Introduces a bill to make Bitcoin Legal Tender [pdf]
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Well, they've already violated this by accepting USD ... 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.
Still though, the Dollar isn't listed there as a tender that the state can utilize. I don't think "make legal tender" means "create" but rather "accept as".
Whatever "make" means is so poorly defined, you could as well delete it from the sentence. What they really can't do is make SCOTUS interpret the word as needed.
The way I read it says a) a state must not [glob] legal tender b) unless they literally make gold and silver coin. Because states issue coin with heads in local custom as much as their reserves allow.
Though an etymologic fallacy, that's closer to the sense of making bread, compare to mix, etc. Grammatically, a legal tender can well be adverbial, Gold the legal tender and nothing else shall be made by the state, where the scope of the verb is pragmatically restricted to the context as per usual.
Re: Arizona Introduces a bill to make Bitcoin Legal Tender [pdf]
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still though, the Dollar isn't listed there as a tender that the state can utilize. I don't think "make legal tender" means "create" but rather "accept as".
> Still though, the Dollar isn't listed there as a tender that the state can utilize. That clause does not forbid the Federal government from making other things legal tender, only the states. The Federal government made paper dollars legal tender via the Legal Tender Act of 1862. (They could make blueberries legal tender, if they wanted, but Arizona cannot .) > I don't think "make legal tender" means "create" but ra…
Yeah, that's what they said. Everyone in Arizona is Arizona. It's called metonymy.