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?"
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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?
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