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. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
Law dictionaries are neither binding nor, in many cases, very accurate as I have already indicated. As is language in general, I might add, no problem there.
Could you clarify which definition you're using, in that case, and where you obtained it, and explain why it's a better definition than the US Code?
But a golden Arizona bitcoin would not be foreign
The Constitution gives the Federal government the exclusive right to mint currency. Arizona isn't allowed to do that.
Consider the possibility that if you're not aware of this basic fact, there may be other lackings in your knowledge.
Article I, Section 10, emphasis mine:
"NO STATE SHALL enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; COIN MONEY; emit bills of credit; make anything 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."
I'm looking at this like a coder, not like a vulture, and I might just not be aware of all the #pragmas #ifdefs and #includes
I m not working from any defition but here are some original ones from upto 1500's ME [1] The verb sense "offer" seems particularly relevant, the law grant providing a trade licence as well. The near homophone tinder catches my attention because through the German cognate Zunder I'm reminded of cent (c pronounced as z /ts/ is regular especially in older writing), supposedly a hundredth («The meaning shifted 17c. to "hundredth part" ...», suggested for ¢ in 1786 [2]) which wasn't very relevant to imperial Shilling and Pound. See also "Kirchenzehnt" (tithe, decima pars). It is well comparable to census [3] and accordingly taxation [4] My point being, it's about what the state may require.
The "code" is in effect a random assortment of decisions, it defines extensively, not intensively. The literal interpretation requires an intensive definition.
That said, I did not recognize "COIN MONEY" as verb. Oops. So people have to coin it DIY is what you are saying? :'-)
[4]: past participle of censere "to assess", "... Latin census also was used for "one's wealth, one's worth, wealthiness."» (o.c.) – compare excise (taxes), Spanish tenir "have"; -der is also evident in Portuguese doar "to give, present", where -l- in intervocalic position is usually lost, mind blown.
Comments
"I doubt that the 'must accept' is part of the definition"
You can doubt it all you like.
https://thelawdictionary.org/legal-tender/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5103
Law dictionaries are neither binding nor, in many cases, very accurate as I have already indicated. As is language in general, I might add, no problem there.
But a golden Arizona bitcoin would not be foreign
Could you clarify which definition you're using, in that case, and where you obtained it, and explain why it's a better definition than the US Code?
The Constitution gives the Federal government the exclusive right to mint currency. Arizona isn't allowed to do that.
Consider the possibility that if you're not aware of this basic fact, there may be other lackings in your knowledge.
Article I, Section 10, emphasis mine:
"NO STATE SHALL enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; COIN MONEY; emit bills of credit; make anything 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."
The quoted part in question is a dispositive right. It does not give anyone the right to do anything. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30119822
I'm looking at this like a coder, not like a vulture, and I might just not be aware of all the #pragmas #ifdefs and #includes
I m not working from any defition but here are some original ones from upto 1500's ME [1] The verb sense "offer" seems particularly relevant, the law grant providing a trade licence as well. The near homophone tinder catches my attention because through the German cognate Zunder I'm reminded of cent (c pronounced as z /ts/ is regular especially in older writing), supposedly a hundredth («The meaning shifted 17c. to "hundredth part" ...», suggested for ¢ in 1786 [2]) which wasn't very relevant to imperial Shilling and Pound. See also "Kirchenzehnt" (tithe, decima pars). It is well comparable to census [3] and accordingly taxation [4] My point being, it's about what the state may require.
The "code" is in effect a random assortment of decisions, it defines extensively, not intensively. The literal interpretation requires an intensive definition.
That said, I did not recognize "COIN MONEY" as verb. Oops. So people have to coin it DIY is what you are saying? :'-)
[1]: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dicti...
[2]: https://www.etymonline.com/word/cent
[3]: https://www.etymonline.com/word/census#etymonline_v_8349
[4]: past participle of censere "to assess", "... Latin census also was used for "one's wealth, one's worth, wealthiness."» (o.c.) – compare excise (taxes), Spanish tenir "have"; -der is also evident in Portuguese doar "to give, present", where -l- in intervocalic position is usually lost, mind blown.