Slashdot Mirror
Legal Tender? Maybe Not, Says Louisiana Law
First time accepted submitter fyngyrz writes "Lousiana has passed a law that says people may no longer use cash for second hand transactions. The idea is to make all transactions traceable, thus foiling copper theft, etc. This move has profound implications that range from constitutional rights to Bitcoin, Craigslist and so forth; I wonder if there are any Slashdotters at all that support such a move." On the list of exceptions: people who deal in used goods or "junk" less frequently than once per month, and (drumroll, please) pawn shops. That means a pretty big chunk of the population who post in online classified ads in Louisiana are probably already in violation.
Sorry Louisiana, you dont get to decide what federal currency can be used for.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I thought this was a joke when I first read it. Apparently it's been on the books a few months though.
Speak for yourself.
It's only debt if the companies are accepting the goods without paying, as long as they pay up when the transaction occurs there's no legal requirement that they pay cash. Apple did a similar thing a while back when they refused to sell iPhones for cash.
So, if I sell a motorcycle on Craigslist and the buyer pays in cash, this is now illegal? That's somehow gotta be unconstitutional, but I need a lawyer for that... And can I pay the Lawyer in cash?
May I be the first to say... Fuck You Louisiana. I'm never going there and I hope you get wiped out by a Hurricane.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Precisely what law? You're only required to take cash when servicing debt, not at the time of the transaction.
It would seem that this would be federal issue, not a state one since this can affect interstate commerce. Basically it's unconstitutional.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
In my just as fictional religion I made up on the spot it is a sign of bright new future that will give everyone a free pony and a lifetime supply of cheese in can.
Oh, I know, because it is unwieldy and likely an illegal invasion of privacy.
No, you don't have the right to find out what I buy. Not even if I am poor and can only afford second hand stuff.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
My understanding is that pawn shops are allowed to use cash because they're already legally required to keep detailed records about the individuals with whom they deal, and this law is all about making it hard for criminals to sell stolen goods without a paper trail.
But this seems like a case of legislatively throwing the baby out with the bath water: "I'll sell you this book of mine for $5, but you'll have to write me a check because I sold someone an old XBox game last week for cash." Or are small private transactions not regulated by the law (I haven't read the text of the bill, obv.)?
If not, this seems outrageous, and I'm all about the outrage!
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
I don't know if transactions are the same as "public charges" or not.
I'm thinking that this has less to do with trying to catch "criminals," and more to do with the state missing out on all that sales tax.
The first link in the summary contains the complete text of the bill. It does not ban cash transactions at all. Rather, it requires second-hand dealers to keep very thorough records of any cash transaction exceeding $25.
This is a terrible law, and would make business difficult for a lot of people, and (depending on how it's interpreted) could make garage sales more trouble than they're worth. But it does not ban the use of cash. I kind of wish it did, because then it would be struck down. As it stands, the law may pass constitutional muster, and become an enormous pain in the ass for a lot of people.
The only way a transaction does not involve "debt" is if the parties involved agree to it before hand. And if there is no debt for the transaction, I dont need to give you a traceable payment. If I do, then its debt and US currency is good for it. There are a bunch of federal trade and commerce laws out there to back this up and it could also be argued that it falls under the US Constitution. Having a legal requirement that the government can track all sales transactions violates a whole bunch o' stuff.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Because there's no debt if the sale isn't made, and the law appears to be preempting the sale if the purchaser can't provide payment with some kind of paper trail. As I understand it, if you have an existing debt, and the creditor refuses to accept cash, then the debt is null and void, but there's no obligation for them to make a sale/establish a debt simply because you are presenting cash. Whether any other laws figure into this, I can't say.
Precisely what law? You're only required to take cash when servicing debt, not at the time of the transaction.
To quote my $20 - "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"
In a technical sense, accepting goods places a burden of debt upon the recipient.
Sounds like something which will be brought to the Supreme Court, where a state claims rights in interstate (even if it is intrastate) commerce which supersede the domain of the federal government.
Interesting ambition, but flawed.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
They aren't. This is why it's perfectly legal to refuse cash when you sell something. But you must accept cash for loan payments and any other repayments of debt.
Louisiana's Governor is the young GOP superstar, Bobby Jindal. Doesn't this move restrict personal freedoms in order to wring more taxes out of the populace? Is that the GOP way all of a sudden?
It is one thing for a private business to refuse to accept cash for a transaction.
It is another entirely for a government to mandate that ALL businesses (dealing in secondhand goods) cannot accept cash for a transaction.
As much as people like to give Apple a dick in the ass on /. this is a VERY different situation.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Well, in that case, the new law should be easy to circumvent: You don't sell the product for cash, but you give it on credit, and the debt is then immediately paid back using cash.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
So, "loan" the price of the item to the would be buyer. When they take a step from the counter, demand payment. It is now a debt and may be settled with U.S. currency.
Or enter into a written or verbal contract which implies a debt.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I love how people over the years say I need to wear a til foil hat every time I mention that it is just a matter of time before the governments move to try to limit, stop, or remove the idea of "cash". Obviously there are Constitutional issues around this, but that never seems to stop the governments. And when it gets too annoying, they can just change the Constitution.
It is not difficult to imagine a world where anything that gives you freedom from being monitored, traced, taxed, restricted, recorded, etc, is eliminated. I keep hoping it will at least wait until I am very old. Younger people don't seem to care about privacy or freedom anyway- they only want safety and convenience, so let THEM deal with it!
So how much is that in cigarettes?
SCOTUS will have a field day with this.
Most American libertarians still defer to the Constitution, however, and minting currency is something they generally agree the Federal government is allowed and even has a responsibility to do.
Actually, the libertarians on my facebook aren't too happy about this either.
I mean, surprise surprise, libertarians aren't happy when restraints are put on personal liberty by a governmental institution. Does it matter if it's a federal government or a state government?
The Constitution specifically reserves to the federal government the power to coin money.
Indeed. It strikes me that simply signing an IOU and then immediately paying it ought to take care of the direct cash payment angle. Just make sure you save the IOU along with any invoices and other source documents, and I don't think there's anything the state could do about it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It is legal tender, provided by the Federal Reserve (which isn't "federal" at all, it's a private bank).
Actually, the Federal Reserve System is federal. Let me contrast it with the company where I work so you can see the differences.
1. The FRS was created in 1913 by an act of congress. The place I work was incorporated in Delaware as a Delaware company.
2. The FRS is lead by the Chairman of the Board of Governers who is appointed by the President of the United States. The place where I work is lead by the Chief Executive Officer, who is appointed by the Board of Directors.
3. The FRS is run by the Board of Governors who are appointed by the President of the United States. The place where I work is run by the Board of Directors, who are selected by shareholders.
4. Congress has oversight of the FRS. The place where I work, not so much.
5. The government sets the salaries of the highest-paid individuals of the FRS. The place where I work, not so much.
6. By law, the FRS has to give any profit over 6% to the United States Treasury. In 2010, the FRS made a profit of $82 Billion. They paid the Treasury $79 Billion. The place where I work, not so much.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
Not if the debt instrument is a piece of paper saying "debt item 014012212"
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Of course its a debt, just a short lived one. They've just made the trade with terms that dictate the debt must be settled immediately.
Wow, you did a good job copying from the opening paragraph of the wikipedia entry for the Federal Reserve, but it is still a mostly privately owned and operated bank. Just because it has public portions doesn't mean it is Federal. Also, the Congress can only oversee it. If it wanted, "it's decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government". That means it is NOT federal. It is only "federal" by name. This is why all money is loaned at interest TO the government. Why would the government loan money to itself at interest and keep the entire population in a state of perpetual debt if it was a federally owned and operated public bank? The answer is, it wouldn't. It is a private bank that is out to do EXACTLY what other private banks do: make money off it's customers.
"I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
Indeed. It strikes me that simply signing an IOU and then immediately paying it ought to take care of the direct cash payment angle. Just make sure you save the IOU along with any invoices and other source documents, and I don't think there's anything the state could do about it.
And thus you defeat the point of using cash.
The IOU must be provided to the state, essentially upon demand, so they can track what you're buying and selling.
If you can't produce an IOU, or any similar document listing what was sold and for how much and what the terms of payment were, then you'll be hit with this law.
All sales of goods imply a verbal contract.
Really? Helen Keller says "".
It may be legal for an individual or a business to refuse cash, but I doubt it is legal for a State to forbid the use of cash.
It's easier for the dealers to just follow the spirit of the law and have a stronger position in case some of the goods were indeed stolen.
Ah, the "if you haven't done anything wrong what are you trying to hide" defense.
Actually, it's the interpretation of a highy-symbolic passage in the holy text of a major religion by a certain subset of believers. Nobody outside of America interprets it that way (nor the whole "rapture" thing either).
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Why circumvent an illegal law. Yes Illegal. Currency is an issue that there is no doubt in the Constitution, it's a power expressly reserved to the federal government. It's exclusively federal precisely because they had so many problems with it during the articles of confederation where the US had several dozen different currencies that were all essentially worthless. The federal courts tend to take a dim view of any attempt by the states to circumvent federal currency and bank laws because the constitution is so very direct about that authority resting with the federal government.
Actually in most cases the buyer takes possession of the item first.
You haven't taken any sort of legal possession of the stuff in your shopping cart.
Even if it were the other way around there would be a debt, the store would owe me a debt in exchange for my cash.
Which they could satisfy by returning your cash.
Or they can hand over the goods you are trying to buy instead.
In any case, there really is no debt. The transaction is settled without the creation of debt. The goods are presumed to have changed ownership at the time of the transaction. There is no silly 11 seconds of debt where you've paid them and they're waiting for your receipt to print and haven't pushed your bag over the counter to you yet.
The intention is and always was that cash could be used for transactions.
Actually no. The intention really was just with respect to actual debts, that you could always satisfy a bill collector with legal tender... he couldn't say no to federal currency and walk off with a few of your goats against your will.
It gaurantees that federally issued currency would be acceptable for debts.
It doesn't gaurantee that it would be acceptable for transactions. Its always been the case that if someone didn't want to use currency, that they could simply refuse to transact with you.
Great point, sexconker:
If you can't produce an IOU, or any similar document listing what was sold and for how much and what the terms of payment were, then you'll be hit with this law.
Privacy keeps eroding towards no anonymity. This law does appear to restrict (and ultimately reduce) anonymous transactions.
What economic motive would provide an incentive to trace all second-hand transactions?
Tax motive: ideally taxes were paid on the first sale; are they required on all subsequent sales?
Raw consumption motive: discourages purchasing of "junk" to encourage more retail consumption?
Corporate motive: someone has to keep track of this data, a government contract winner would be excited for the data mining potential.
Other motive?
Good point, the private owners of the Federal Reserve are just other banks. To become a nationally chartered bank you must own stock in of one of the regional federal reserve banks.
Extending credit to every stranger who says they want to buy something from you? That's so 2007.
Net N/T is a debt.
I will send/give you your product now, and you have N units of T time to pay me. That is debt (credit).
Net 5 seconds is legally a loophole around this for sellers IMHO (though I ma sure you would be in court for it).
More interesting, which I have yet to see covered in the treads here:
this is targeting scrap metal. When I sell scrap metal the transaction usually goes like this:
1) I haul scrap to recycler.
2) recycler takes possession of material and grades it for purity and weight
3) recycler puts it *in their accumulation bin* affirming posession
4) I go talk to the yard boss with a slip of paper in hand
5) I get paid by the yard boss based on the slip of paper saying that I dropped off x weight of y grade z metal.
It sure looks to me that between step 3 and 5 a debt and IOU were created.
In my case I have to provide ID to get my money, because I usually am dropping off gold scrap and they don't want to be on the hook for something like that, thus they take my ID and save it for finger pointing later.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Have them pay with a cheque, then redeem their own cheque immediately for cash. Problem solved.
So you're saying they should sell you a second-hand check for cash?
States can specify alternate legal tender, if and only if it is silver and gold coin.
Article 1, Section 10:
1: No State shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; .
Actually, nobody forbids the seller from doing a very lousy job on checking and writing down the details of the debtor. Yes, you have to turn in the record. No, it doesn't have to contain anything useful other than the amount and unreadable signatures.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Actually - but this is only semantics - the only way a transaction does not involve "debt" is if the parties involved agree to it before hand and exchange goods for goods, or goods for services, without having a currency ever involved.
Interestingly, about every currency nowadays is a debt, an IOU by the government to the central bank. More interestingly, this is a debt without cover. Government has no income or property to ever pay this debt, other than taking another loan. (federal gold reserve is a tiny drop nowhere near the value of the debt).
So, what you do when you receive $100 note for a used Stereo? You lost a tangible item and in exchange received a document that means the bearer is owed a credit to be paid in undefinded time by nonexistent means by entity you can in no way force to pay the credit. You can only pass it on to someone else in exchange for your debts. Feels funny to realize how volatile and unreliable a treasure cash is...
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Until they prosecute you for conspiracy to violate the underlying law. If it's big enough, the local US Attorney might even make a RICO case out of you.
If you don't do due diligence on the loan, the courts aren't going to treat them as legitimate loans. You'll still be guilty.
A state has the right to strike alternative legal tender, per Article 1, Section 10. They don't have the enumerated right to require it. Much like an employer asking your favorite sexual position, they can try. Thus, someone will soon see the state of LA in court, I suspect.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Except that the law defines a debt as an something that is owed and must be paid. When I ask for a ticket to a movie and the clerk says "$10 please" that is not a debt because I don't HAVE to pay it, I can back out of the transaction at no cost. When I buy a prepay card for my cellphone, that's not a debt because I can say "Actually, never mind!" When I get a cellphone bill for my not-prepay cell, that is a debt because I the service was rendered, I must pay it. If I rent an apartment, the damage deposit is not a debt because I can always say "Actually I live in a van down by the river". But the rent is a debt because without my legal notice (this obviously depends on state rental law) I can't just say "Not paying this month, bye". If I line up all night, get an iPhone 4S, and go to pay, that's not a debt even though I'm already holding the phone in my hand. But if I rage at being told I can't pay cash, and smash up a window, and they send me a bill, that is a debt because I can't just say "Just kidding, the window is fine!" You can play stupid word games all you want, talking about how technically you are taking a 5 second loan out, but it's bullshit. It's just like drug dealers who say "I'm just selling bags, whatever is inside is just filler"
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
...how about it says right on the bill itself "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE". Top-left corner of every bill printed in the United States of America. NOW, if they want to make a law that says you have to keep a record of every transaction, public and private, that's a different story, BUT YOU CANNOT REFUSE CASH FOR PAYMENT OF ANY DEBT!!! Pittsburgh bars are practicing this illegal maneuver as well and need to be hammered by the courts for it, as well. Someone just needs to take this to the courts...won't take long for it to be deemed unconstitutional.
Congress has oversight of the FRS. The place where I work, not so much.
Really? Because congress can no longer even get numbers about how much money is in circulation, how much has been printed and how much has been loaned out.
There's a reason why they had to threaten to pass a bill to audit the fed before they found out anything at all.
Also, I would like you to answer, who owns the fed? who is on the board of governers? How many appointments has each president made and who were they and on what basis have they been appointed and were they approved by congress?
Furthermore, do you think there's a conflict of interest between the people controlling the fed and their other occupations and family ties? Do you think they wield too much power?
By the way the answer to the last 2 questions is yes.
Liberty.