8 ms·

Wouldn't this violate the federal Constitution? > No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin

Wouldn't this violate the federal Constitution? > No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. -Article I, Section 10, Clause 1

yawaworht1978 5y ago
I am totally against all things Bitcoin, however, it's not coined exclusive in the us and the constitution is not immutable, else it would be a very bad document that can't get with the times. Anything in the constitution is not canonical forever.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > Anything in the constitution is not canonical forever. It is, however, canonical until amended or SCOTUS interprets it away. Constitutionally, it appears quite clear Arizona can't do this currently, and the law as a result would almost certainly be immediately stayed and struck down if passed.
  - posterboy 5y ago
    The required interpretation appears readily available. Arizona wouldn't issue anything, but they'll gladly accept it.
    - giaour 5y ago
      "No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts"
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      It says states can't make something legal tender. Nothing about acceptance. Arizona can accept Bitcoin all they like. They cannot make it legal tender in Arizona.
      - posterboy 5y ago
        So, they'd have to print it in gold. Still an option at the worth of it currently.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        No, that wouldn't work. The gold printout would be worth its weight in gold, not the value in Bitcoin of the data printed on it. If you used $1 worth of gold to print one BTC worth $40k, the recipient would only be legally required to count it as $1 towards your debt.
        posterboy 5y ago
        Who says that? This thread seems to be full of arm chair lawyers as another comment just told me that there is no gold standard since 1970. Whatever, the thing I want to buy with the particular coin would immediately reduce 40.000 fold in price. That might be illegal in some sense, if contracts are bound to stay valid across fluctuation, but that's basically how markets work. In the end it's all numbers on paper anyway, so I don't see the immediate implication, except that a state is supposed not to go on a lone run.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        > Who says that? The dictionary? The gold would be legal tender. Doesn't matter what's written on it; I can doodle artwork on a $10 bill and claim it's worth $1,000 because my art is awesome, but people aren't required to accept it as anything more than $10 towards a debt. > another comment just told me that there is no gold standard since 1970 What part of that do you object to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system "On 15 August 1971, the United States terminated convertibility of the US dollar to gold, effectively bringing the Bretton Woods system to an end and rendering the dollar a fiat currency."
        posterboy 5y ago
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      Arizona can a accept taxes in sheep if they want. What they cannot do is require their citizens to accept sheep when they want to be paid in USD. Same deal with Bitcoin.
- boardwaalk 5y ago
  We can’t even elect a president on a popular vote. It’s immutable enough.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Currently the constitution is mostly immutable considering how split our country is.
omarfarooq 5y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/1863/06/06/archives/the-legal-tender-decision.html https://www.nytimes.com/1863/06/06/archives/the-legal-tender...
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Those refer to a different Constitutional issue (Federal, not state, and one's over the Fifth Amendment). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Tender_Cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Tender_Cases
fallingknife 5y ago
> make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts Well, they've already violated this by accepting USD, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can just do BTC too. To strike this down the courts would need a lawsuit, though, and I'm not sure who could claim damages. > coin money I take this to mean issuing a currency, which they are not doing here since they don't control BTC.
- bdonlan 5y ago
  The federal government is what makes USD legal tender, and this clause does not restrict the federal government. Standing would presumably be with the party which refused bitcoin payment in satisfaction of a debt.
  - posterboy 5y ago
    This only means it would be pegged to the gold standard set by the FED, I reckon. Edit: I'm serious. I'm not saying that's a realistic option.
    - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
      If you want to be serious; please provide a serious basis for your commentary rather than just making things up. For example: there is no gold standard set by the Federal Reserve, nor any conceptual relevance of gold to the value of the dollar, since the 1970s.
      - posterboy 5y ago
        Then the entire clause would be meaningless. I should have said pegged to the US$, but I thought that was obviously implied.
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  >Well, they've already violated this by accepting USD ... no, the US dollar is a Federal construction, created by Congress. Congress is not bound by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 - only the states.
NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
Yes; almost certainly unconstitutional.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

yawaworht1978 5y ago

I am totally against all things Bitcoin, however, it's not coined exclusive in the us and the constitution is not immutable, else it would be a very bad document that can't get with the times. Anything in the constitution is not canonical forever.

ceejayoz 5y ago
> Anything in the constitution is not canonical forever. It is, however, canonical until amended or SCOTUS interprets it away. Constitutionally, it appears quite clear Arizona can't do this currently, and the law as a result would almost certainly be immediately stayed and struck down if passed.
- posterboy 5y ago
  The required interpretation appears readily available. Arizona wouldn't issue anything, but they'll gladly accept it.
  - giaour 5y ago
    "No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts"
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    It says states can't make something legal tender. Nothing about acceptance. Arizona can accept Bitcoin all they like. They cannot make it legal tender in Arizona.
    - posterboy 5y ago
      So, they'd have to print it in gold. Still an option at the worth of it currently.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        No, that wouldn't work. The gold printout would be worth its weight in gold, not the value in Bitcoin of the data printed on it. If you used $1 worth of gold to print one BTC worth $40k, the recipient would only be legally required to count it as $1 towards your debt.
        posterboy 5y ago
        Who says that? This thread seems to be full of arm chair lawyers as another comment just told me that there is no gold standard since 1970. Whatever, the thing I want to buy with the particular coin would immediately reduce 40.000 fold in price. That might be illegal in some sense, if contracts are bound to stay valid across fluctuation, but that's basically how markets work. In the end it's all numbers on paper anyway, so I don't see the immediate implication, except that a state is supposed not to go on a lone run.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        > Who says that? The dictionary? The gold would be legal tender. Doesn't matter what's written on it; I can doodle artwork on a $10 bill and claim it's worth $1,000 because my art is awesome, but people aren't required to accept it as anything more than $10 towards a debt. > another comment just told me that there is no gold standard since 1970 What part of that do you object to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system "On 15 August 1971, the United States terminated convertibility of the US dollar to gold, effectively bringing the Bretton Woods system to an end and rendering the dollar a fiat currency."
        posterboy 5y ago
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    Arizona can a accept taxes in sheep if they want. What they cannot do is require their citizens to accept sheep when they want to be paid in USD. Same deal with Bitcoin.
boardwaalk 5y ago
We can’t even elect a president on a popular vote. It’s immutable enough.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Currently the constitution is mostly immutable considering how split our country is.

omarfarooq 5y ago

https://www.nytimes.com/1863/06/06/archives/the-legal-tender-decision.html https://www.nytimes.com/1863/06/06/archives/the-legal-tender...

ceejayoz 5y ago
Those refer to a different Constitutional issue (Federal, not state, and one's over the Fifth Amendment). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Tender_Cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Tender_Cases

fallingknife 5y ago

> make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts Well, they've already violated this by accepting USD, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can just do BTC too. To strike this down the courts would need a lawsuit, though, and I'm not sure who could claim damages. > coin money I take this to mean issuing a currency, which they are not doing here since they don't control BTC.

bdonlan 5y ago
The federal government is what makes USD legal tender, and this clause does not restrict the federal government. Standing would presumably be with the party which refused bitcoin payment in satisfaction of a debt.
- posterboy 5y ago
  This only means it would be pegged to the gold standard set by the FED, I reckon. Edit: I'm serious. I'm not saying that's a realistic option.
  - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
    If you want to be serious; please provide a serious basis for your commentary rather than just making things up. For example: there is no gold standard set by the Federal Reserve, nor any conceptual relevance of gold to the value of the dollar, since the 1970s.
    - posterboy 5y ago
      Then the entire clause would be meaningless. I should have said pegged to the US$, but I thought that was obviously implied.
NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
>Well, they've already violated this by accepting USD ... no, the US dollar is a Federal construction, created by Congress. Congress is not bound by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 - only the states.

NovemberWhiskey 5y ago

Yes; almost certainly unconstitutional.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]