no more cash sales?

The reasoning beyond this law makes sense. The fulfillment of it is asnine. However,
local laws can control local economies.
 
The very first comment at the story says it all:

Submitted by Marsha C. Mais on Oct 21, 2011.
legal fucking tender. Louisiana can't pas this! Cash is a federal note that has to be accepted for all transactions!! A state law cannot supersede federal in this case.
Click to expand...
 
Folks, the federal government is not God.

Legal Tender Status

Page Content
I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. 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 policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
Click to expand...

Dept of Treasury

There are also several lawsuits challenging the statuts of "legal tender" when the Constitution says gold & silver.
 
gonz... regardless of the narrow technicalities that arise from literalist interpretation, this law restricts freedom in commerce. which certainly would seem to violate the broadly shared values of a free market society. hence the objections. or rather my objection. as to the other legal scholars posting in this thread...

(well at least i was smart enough not to invoke something that i don't fully understand, that being the specific laws that could be in play with this...)
 
I think this law is wrong, because it forces a papertrail, which, it can be argued, interferes with due process & infered privacy.

However, it does not stop commerce, since it only limits the method of payment, whcih can also be limited by the seller.

I'm not defending this piece of legislation, I'm arguing states rights.
 
it also establishes a de facto social class requirement to engage in commerce.

you and i can do something with a money order. some can't.
 
7-11 sells money orders. Most po'folk go there & get 'em. The Escalade dealer doesn't take cash.

a de facto social class requirement
Click to expand...

This is basically the same argument against ID's before voting. They manage their foodstamp credit cards without issues.
 
the escalade-driving food stamp barons shall not be oppressed!

there is no reason to degrade this into a critique of those just south of you in the social order.

it isn't them that need to GET money orders, but RECEIVE them for goods sold to a "broker." money orders in that case impose an additional cost per transaction for the proprietor of a fine dirtbutt retail operation. but then they could just write checks. what can someone without a bank account do with a check?

and stop picking on latisha. she likes her escalade.
 
I learned about Escalades & food stamps back in the 70's. It has been reinforced, repeatedly, since.

I see your point about the broker. See, if we had the FAIR tax, we wouldn't care about drugs dealers & their M.O. issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top