You are right that it's not a magical shield or protection in the moment. It would matter in court but that would be well after the fact and, as we've all seen, would just give ICE time to play their shell game.
Re-read my comment. You're saying the same thing I did. Did you think I replied to you and not the other user?
Here's what I said:
A retail store, a restaurant etc. can refuse currency from a customer but a loan/lien holder, a public utility company, a government entity or an HOA must all accept any legal tender.
Which is the same as:
If it's before the point of sale, they can refuse any form of payment. If you've already accrued the debt, they can't refuse it.
The user I replied to who was responding to you said:
There is no federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services.
I told them they were confusing two separate issues.
The Wyoming that Campbell described is a verdant valley bisected by the Susquehanna River in what is now northeastern Pennsylvania. In the mid 1700’s, the colony of Connecticut claimed it, citing a conveyance by King James the First under the great seal of England dated November 3, 1620. At the same time, the Six Nations Indian tribes—the Iroquois—claimed they owned the Wyoming valley, though it was mostly occupied by Delaware and other peoples pushed out of other places, who were sometimes allies of the Iroquois, and sometimes not.
I don't even know why I'm engaging with you. I just realized you're not who I responded to originally.
If you post your anecdotal experience about a hunting cabin and then go on to argue against exemptions to a tax targeted at real estate hoarders you're as dumb as the person I did reply to originally.
I didn't say progressive taxes are authoritarian. Your suggestion is. Applying a blanket tax without regard to impact or circumstance is authoritarian and the kind of thing a dictator would do.
It's un-democratic.
I don’t especially think an exception clause is reasonable, I believe they will just be abused.
This is in effect no different than saying the tax shouldn't be implemented because it might unfairly impact certain people, like 5 families sharing a hunting cabin.
If your goal is mental masturbation then it doesn't matter but if you are talking real world, practical solutions yours doesn't work.
You're not who I replied to so none of what you said applies to my original comment.
Reasonable suspicion does have a specific legal definition.
You are right that it's not a magical shield or protection in the moment. It would matter in court but that would be well after the fact and, as we've all seen, would just give ICE time to play their shell game.