AZ: Gold and silver can be legal tender

[birdman]

Yeah, that's the part of the article I was going off - to make something legal tender is to make it mandatory to accept it.  So if the law is passed and you want to pay your Colorado taxes in gold, the state can't require dollars instead.  That's the feature of the scheme that makes it unconstitutional.

Wrong, they can legally make it either-or for state debts.

[De Selby]

Wrong, they can legally make it either-or for state debts.

Not sure what you mean?  The way to make something either/or is to pass no law at all.  Designating something to be legal tender by definition means you can force acceptance of that thing in payment - that's what "legal tender" means.

[dogmush]

But it's only legal tender in the specified circumstance: Debt to the State.  So the only one the State is forcing to accept it is....the State.  Which presumably is OK with it because they passed the law allowing it.

[birdman]

Not sure what you mean?  The way to make something either/or is to pass no law at all.  Designating something to be legal tender by definition means you can force acceptance of that thing in payment - that's what "legal tender" means.

What I mean is they can make gold/silver legal tender in the state IN ADDITION TO dollars being legal tender.
Which is what they did/trying to do--they can then accept both.  As for private exchange, it doesn't really change anything, other than normalizing the behavior.  Businesses can accept either, and any deviation from the normal exchange rates would present an arbitrage opportunity, and thus be rapidly evened out.

[De Selby]

Having a competing currency that the state trades in is what makes it unconstitutional.  Even if it has little impact on the market - market impact or interstate effects have no bearing on this issue, constitutionally.

The constitution gives monetary policy to the Feds.  Any state attempt to set up an alternative or to opt out of federal money is contrary to an express federal power.

[birdman]

Having a competing currency that the state trades in is what makes it unconstitutional.  Even if it has little impact on the market - market impact or interstate effects have no bearing on this issue, constitutionally.

The constitution gives monetary policy to the Feds.  Any state attempt to set up an alternative or to opt out of federal money is contrary to an express federal power.

Since when.  How do you address private bank note issue prior to federal reserve act?  Those were "dollars", and weren't coordinated by, or controlled by, the federal government.  My whole point is you keep saying unconstitutional, when, in fact, as the constitution wasn't amended to create the federal reserve, the existence of state or private currencies IS constitutional, but illegal if they are "dollars" as it conflicts with the legislation.

You haven't addressed this point at all.

[De Selby]

Birdman, the constitution gives the federal government plenary control over monetary policy - new currencies that compete with federal tender in this area are unconstitutional because they are an attempt to exercise a power that is granted to the federal government, not to the states, in the constitution.

Designating new forms of legal tender, apart from the ones designated by the federal government, is an instance of this.  The Feds have said their dollar is to be legal tender and it's to have nothing to do with gold in the USA (exercising an express power), and states are designating an alternative (frustrating the exercise of the power.)

I dug out a case from first year constitutional law that sums this up quite handily:

Having thus, in the exercise of undisputed constitutional powers, undertaken to provide a currency for the whole country, it cannot be questioned that Congress may constitutionally secure the benefit of it to the people by appropriate legislation. To this end, Congress has denied the quality of legal tender to foreign coins, and has provided by law against the imposition of counterfeit and base coin on the community. To the same end, Congress may restrain by suitable enactments the circulation as money of any notes not issued under its own authority. Without this power, indeed, its attempts to secure a sound and uniform currency for the country must be futile.

Online here:http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/75/533/case.html

[birdman]

Birdman, the constitution gives the federal government plenary control over monetary policy - new currencies that compete with federal tender in this area are unconstitutional because they are an attempt to exercise a power that is granted to the federal government, not to the states, in the constitution.

Designating new forms of legal tender, apart from the ones designated by the federal government, is an instance of this.  The Feds have said their dollar is to be legal tender and it's to have nothing to do with gold in the USA (exercising an express power), and states are designating an alternative (frustrating the exercise of the power.)

I dug out a case from first year constitutional law that sums this up quite handily:

Online here:http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/75/533/case.html

Okay, now I'm getting really pissed.
1. You STILL haven't addressed my point of state currencies.
2. The case you cited does say what you say, HOWEVER, it was in relation to the federal govt taxing STATE bank notes.  It was upheld, as to EFFECT the power to create a federal currency, congress had to make other currencies THAT WERE LEGAL less attractive.
The whole point of that case was the tax on state issued notes WAS constitutional.  Therefore, the issuance of those notes (again, pre-FRA) was also constitutional.

Also, pre-national bank acts, there wasn't a tax, and state and private monies WERE issued.

You haven't addressed why those weren't constitutional, are STILL arguing around, rather than addressing my question, which was, AGAIN: (since you can't seem to read, but rather want to seem smart, ill even clarify)

If private issuance of money was unconstitutional pre-federal reserve act, WHY WERE LAWS NEEDED TO TAX IT AND/OR STOP IT!

Unconstitutional behavior, lets say, the only CRIME mentioned in the constitution (treason), doesn't need additional laws to make it illegal. 

Your ORIGINAL point was private or state money issuance wss unconstitutional, yet if was done, until laws (not amendments) were created to tax or stop it, which means it WAS constitutional.


The TL:DR version: Go fu@k yourself you condescending fuc&wad and answer the goddamn question or shut the hell up.

[De Selby]

Birdman, it is the exercise of a federal power to create a single monetary system that makes competing ones unconstitutional - the Feds could just as easily go back to private currencies (as mentioned in my second or so post here), but they haven't.  It's up to them to decide because the constitution gives them that power.

You're fundamentally misunderstanding the issue here - the federal government has the power to do whatever it wants and all states have to comply on this subject.  That's why private currencies were ok before the federal government adopted its current federal reserve system, and not ok now - the Feds get to call the shots as they want, because the constitution explicitly authorises it.

Your attitude is totally unwarranted on this, and it is the product of your own misunderstanding.  Not sure how name calling advances the discussion.

[Gewehr98]

Lots of heat, little light.