State senators voted Wednesday to make gold and silver legal tender in Arizona -- but not copper, cattle, cotton, citrus or climate.
SB 1439 stems from concerns by some that the paper money being printed by the Federal Reserve Bank is becoming worth less and less. So they convinced Sen. Chester Crandell, R-Heber, to give gold and silver coins created by private, for-profit mints the same legal status to pay bills, at least in Arizona.
But Sen. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, suggested that if Arizona was going to have merchants weighing and assaying gold and silver to determine its value, perhaps the state should not stop there. So he proposed an "Arizona-centric'' list of additions from the "Five Cs'' for which the state is known.
He said, for example, there is little difference between trading beef or oranges as commodities versus gold and silver.
"And what has more value than sunbeams?'' he added, though failing to describe how they could be counted.
Farley's light-hearted effort to amend the bill met with frowns from supporters.
Senate President Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, called it an "unfortunate attempt'' at humor. And Crandell bristled at having fun poked at his measure.
"Some of these bills come from constituents,'' he complained during Wednesday's floor debate.
"They feel very passionate about what they are,'' Crandell continued. "And to ridicule and to make fun of a bill that is being put through I think is very unbecoming the profession that we have down here.''
Farley, however, said his amendment fits the proposal.
"I believe the bill itself ridicules our financial system,'' he responded, saying his amendment adding other items to the list of legal tender "simply demonstrates how the underlying bill has serious problems with it.''
Biggs, however, said there's no parallel between what Farley proposes and Crandell's bill.
He said gold and silver have long been recognized as the backing for legitimate currency. Everything else, Biggs said, is just bartering.
And Biggs aligned himself with the thinking of those who want the coins recognized as legitimate.
"You either have fiat currency which continues to inflate, which is what we have today, or you have something backing up that currency,'' he said.
The wording of the measure stems from the fact the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits states from creating their own currency. But supporters contend that does not preclude states from recognizing coins minted by private organizations.
The legislation would not require anyone to actually accept these coins.
Crandell acknowledged his legislation probably is unworkable, at least at this point. So he agreed on Wednesday to delay its effective date until after the 2014 legislative session, giving lawmakers a chance to work out any of the kinks.
A final roll-call vote is needed before sending the measure to the House.
Max in Scottsdale posted at 1:54 am on Sun, Mar 3, 2013.
Does the GOP believe we're still in the 19th century?
Arizona Willie posted at 10:50 am on Sun, Mar 3, 2013.
Just one more demonstration of the craziness of the Arizona Republican dominated Legislature and the need to clean house of all those kooks.
VOTE DEMOCRATIC.
They could not POSSIBLY be any worse.
samarth posted at 7:50 am on Tue, Mar 5, 2013.
"He said, for example, there is little difference between trading beef or oranges as commodities versus gold and silver."
What about the entirety of monetary history where silver and gold have been the mainstay form of money?
"The wording of the measure stems from the fact the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits states from creating their own currency. But supporters contend that does not preclude states from recognizing coins minted by private organizations."
This statement is false. Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution states: "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts"
THEREFORE, States have a reserve power to make gold and silver legal tender for the payment of debts, because the act of accepting anything else (i.e. Federal Reserve Notes) for the payment of debts is UNCONSTITUTIONAL as clearly stated in this section.