4 ms·

Having now read the bill[1], I’m interested in the legal theory that would make it Constitutional. It’s not limited to interstate transactions (would defeat the

Having now read the bill[1], I’m interested in the legal theory that would make it Constitutional. It’s not limited to interstate transactions (would defeat the point) or retail establishments engaged in interstate banking through their payment processors. What authority does Congress have to regulate whether a retailer in Wisconsin has to accept cash rather than only checks from local banks? [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2650/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2650...

tastyfreeze 6y ago
Congress hasn't bothered with Constitutionality in a very long time. Positivism currently rules the floor.
mindslight 6y ago
IMO this seems like more of a clarification of existing law than actually new law. The only ambiguity has been "legal tender for all debts", where the businesses' argument is that they can revoke an offer based on how someone intends to pay. As things currently stand, one would be in the right to go into a "cashless" store, consume an item that was for sale, say you forgot your credit card, and offer to settle up in cash.
- tzs 6y ago
  > As things currently stand, one would be in the right to go into a "cashless" store, consume an item that was for sale, say you forgot your credit card, and offer to settle up in cash. First you would have to successfully argue that there is a debt. The store might argue that you stole the item you consumed. It all depends on how you fit what happens in a store to the offer/acceptable view of contracts. Is it: 1. by putting the item on the shelf with a price tag, the store is making an offer to sell it at that price, and 2. by picking it up you have accepted the offer, forming a contract and now you owe the store for the item? Or is it: 1. when you bring the item to the cashier you are making an offer to buy the item at the marked price, and 2. when the cashier rings you up the store accepts your offer? Even if putting an item on a shelf with a price tag is an offer, rather than an invitation to treat, I believe I've seen at least one case that said that picking up the item isn't enough to accept--the offer is accepted and the contract formed when you actually pay. So even then consuming the item before paying would be theft.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    I don't see the argument how putting an item on a shelf with a price tag is not an offer, but IANAA. There is a specific item, marked with a specific price, able to be taken by a specific customer. This is also why sections of items get physically covered eg sale displays before the sale starts, alcohol on sundays, "non essential" items during covid shutdowns. > Even if putting an item on a shelf with a price tag is an offer, rather than an invitation to treat, I believe I've seen at least one case that said that picking up the item isn't enough to accept--the offer is accepted and the contract formed when you actually pay. So even then consuming the item before paying would be theft. Picking up the item clearly isn't enough to accept an offer, otherwise the store could insist that you pay instead of being able to put it back! That's actually why I said to consume the item, as it's an action indicating explicit acceptance. If the intent is to eventually complete your end of the contract, then it's not theft.
fedreserved 6y ago
Any economic activity that affects interstate commerce can be regulated by Congress after the new deal supreme court . Person travels from illionois to wisconsoin, according to this theory Congress can regulate the type of payment the traveler cab take because this would affect interstate commerce. I fundamentally think this goes against the intent of the Constitution, but this is the current law of the land
javagram 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn Congress can regulate any type of economic activity now under this 1942 precedent > But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'

tastyfreeze 6y ago

Congress hasn't bothered with Constitutionality in a very long time. Positivism currently rules the floor.

mindslight 6y ago

IMO this seems like more of a clarification of existing law than actually new law. The only ambiguity has been "legal tender for all debts", where the businesses' argument is that they can revoke an offer based on how someone intends to pay. As things currently stand, one would be in the right to go into a "cashless" store, consume an item that was for sale, say you forgot your credit card, and offer to settle up in cash.

tzs 6y ago
> As things currently stand, one would be in the right to go into a "cashless" store, consume an item that was for sale, say you forgot your credit card, and offer to settle up in cash. First you would have to successfully argue that there is a debt. The store might argue that you stole the item you consumed. It all depends on how you fit what happens in a store to the offer/acceptable view of contracts. Is it: 1. by putting the item on the shelf with a price tag, the store is making an offer to sell it at that price, and 2. by picking it up you have accepted the offer, forming a contract and now you owe the store for the item? Or is it: 1. when you bring the item to the cashier you are making an offer to buy the item at the marked price, and 2. when the cashier rings you up the store accepts your offer? Even if putting an item on a shelf with a price tag is an offer, rather than an invitation to treat, I believe I've seen at least one case that said that picking up the item isn't enough to accept--the offer is accepted and the contract formed when you actually pay. So even then consuming the item before paying would be theft.
- mindslight 6y ago
  I don't see the argument how putting an item on a shelf with a price tag is not an offer, but IANAA. There is a specific item, marked with a specific price, able to be taken by a specific customer. This is also why sections of items get physically covered eg sale displays before the sale starts, alcohol on sundays, "non essential" items during covid shutdowns. > Even if putting an item on a shelf with a price tag is an offer, rather than an invitation to treat, I believe I've seen at least one case that said that picking up the item isn't enough to accept--the offer is accepted and the contract formed when you actually pay. So even then consuming the item before paying would be theft. Picking up the item clearly isn't enough to accept an offer, otherwise the store could insist that you pay instead of being able to put it back! That's actually why I said to consume the item, as it's an action indicating explicit acceptance. If the intent is to eventually complete your end of the contract, then it's not theft.

fedreserved 6y ago

Any economic activity that affects interstate commerce can be regulated by Congress after the new deal supreme court . Person travels from illionois to wisconsoin, according to this theory Congress can regulate the type of payment the traveler cab take because this would affect interstate commerce. I fundamentally think this goes against the intent of the Constitution, but this is the current law of the land

javagram 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn Congress can regulate any type of economic activity now under this 1942 precedent > But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'