The legal tender status of US dollars doesn't prevent any party, public or private, from accepting payment in other forms, whether currency or commodities.
It does mean that US courts, when awarding damages (even for a contract denominated in some other currency) will do so in dollars, and that a tender of payment in dollars for a debt will generally be given legal effect.
And, anyhow, if it doesn't require the state to actually hold bitcoins, it may mean the State just contracts with any of the many entities that takes payment in BTC and converts it to dollars. Its no different, in effect, than the state deciding to take VISA instead of just cash or check.
EDIT: on review, the bill requires that the plan includes contracting with a third-party payment processor.
the hilarious thing is that it is TOTALLY unconstitutional.
Article 1 section 10 provides that "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."
Of course, striking down the act by virtue of its violation of this provision would also expose the fact that dollars are no longer gold and silver, either, and thus are also unconstitutional as legal tender for the states.
But the state isn't making Bitcoin legal tender, and states don't make dollars legal tender, either.
"Legal tender" is something that can be used to pay debts and that a creditor is legally required to accept. Dollars being legal tender is something instituted by the federal government.
States, on the other hand, must accept dollars to pay state taxes (as that's legal tender), but they can also accept anything else they like in lieu of dollars (if both the state and the person paying taxes agree on this alternate payment), whether that's Bitcoins, chickens, or performances of the Thriller dance.
Comments
IANAL... is this even legal given that the US Dollar is the only official currency of the United States?
The legal tender status of US dollars doesn't prevent any party, public or private, from accepting payment in other forms, whether currency or commodities.
It does mean that US courts, when awarding damages (even for a contract denominated in some other currency) will do so in dollars, and that a tender of payment in dollars for a debt will generally be given legal effect.
And, anyhow, if it doesn't require the state to actually hold bitcoins, it may mean the State just contracts with any of the many entities that takes payment in BTC and converts it to dollars. Its no different, in effect, than the state deciding to take VISA instead of just cash or check.
EDIT: on review, the bill requires that the plan includes contracting with a third-party payment processor.
the hilarious thing is that it is TOTALLY unconstitutional.
Article 1 section 10 provides that "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."
Of course, striking down the act by virtue of its violation of this provision would also expose the fact that dollars are no longer gold and silver, either, and thus are also unconstitutional as legal tender for the states.
But the state isn't making Bitcoin legal tender, and states don't make dollars legal tender, either.
"Legal tender" is something that can be used to pay debts and that a creditor is legally required to accept. Dollars being legal tender is something instituted by the federal government.
States, on the other hand, must accept dollars to pay state taxes (as that's legal tender), but they can also accept anything else they like in lieu of dollars (if both the state and the person paying taxes agree on this alternate payment), whether that's Bitcoins, chickens, or performances of the Thriller dance.
I stand corrected, but will keep the karma points.