Cleanmachine wrote:I understand that the Federal Judge's Order was to allow the Merchant to charge the fee. The Merchant has the option.
What would be interesting, those States that current will not allow the Merchant to charge a fee, would the Federal Judge's
decision over rule the State law???
Would this also apply to those credit card issuers who do not allow the fee????
Interesting to see what happens.
No. The judge is just approving a settlement between the parties. There are no issues of any kind of preemption of state law involved.
Starting Score: ~500 (12/01/2008)
Cleanmachine wrote:I understand that the Federal Judge's Order was to allow the Merchant to charge the fee. The Merchant has the option.
What would be interesting, those States that current will not allow the Merchant to charge a fee, would the Federal Judge's
decision over rule the State law???
Would this also apply to those credit card issuers who do not allow the fee????
Interesting to see what happens.
Judiciary can only strike down laws that are unconstitutional and prohibiting a merchant fee is absolutely allowed by the constitution, thus the state laws will stand.
mxp114 wrote:
Cleanmachine wrote:I understand that the Federal Judge's Order was to allow the Merchant to charge the fee. The Merchant has the option.
What would be interesting, those States that current will not allow the Merchant to charge a fee, would the Federal Judge's
decision over rule the State law???
Would this also apply to those credit card issuers who do not allow the fee????
Interesting to see what happens.
Judiciary can only strike down laws that are unconstitutional and prohibiting a merchant fee is absolutely allowed by the constitution, thus the state laws will stand.
Well, that's not entirely accurate. Federal law can preempt state law. So there are some state laws that are not in and of themselves unconstitutional, but may nevertheless be impermissible in view of conflicting federal law.
But that's not at issue here. The judge isn't doing anything other than approving a settlement agreement between the parties. He's not passing on the state laws at all.
ETA: I suppose that a law that is preempted could be said to be unconstitutional because the State is acting in an area where authority is reserved to the Federal Government, ultimately by virtue of the Constitution. So perhaps no disagreement between mxp and I. But still, this really has nothing to do with the court passing on state law.
Walt_K wrote:
mxp114 wrote:
Cleanmachine wrote:I understand that the Federal Judge's Order was to allow the Merchant to charge the fee. The Merchant has the option.
What would be interesting, those States that current will not allow the Merchant to charge a fee, would the Federal Judge's
decision over rule the State law???
Would this also apply to those credit card issuers who do not allow the fee????
Interesting to see what happens.
Judiciary can only strike down laws that are unconstitutional and prohibiting a merchant fee is absolutely allowed by the constitution, thus the state laws will stand.
Well, that's not entirely accurate. Federal law can preempt state law. So there are some state laws that are not in and of themselves unconstitutional, but may nevertheless be impermissible in view of conflicting federal law.
But that's not at issue here. The judge isn't doing anything other than approving a settlement agreement between the parties. He's not passing on the state laws at all.
ETA: I suppose that a law that is preempted could be said to be unconstitutional because the State is acting in an area where authority is reserved to the Federal Government, ultimately by virtue of the Constitution. So perhaps no disagreement between mxp and I. But still, this really has nothing to do with the court passing on state law.
Yes if a state law conflicts with a federal law, then the federal law prevails. The only way the NY anti-surcharge law could be reversed is if congress enacts federal legislation permitting fees, the state legislators repeal the law, or the NY Court of Appeals, a federal court or SCOTUS declares the law unconstititional.
I don't think a state law that is preempted is unconstitutional. The state isn't always necessarily acting in an area reserved for the feds, it could be that the duly enacted state law simply conflicts with a federal statute. A law is only unconstititional if it conflicts with the constitution.
NFCU FAN CLUB FAN#1
mxp114 wrote:
Walt_K wrote:
mxp114 wrote:
Cleanmachine wrote:I understand that the Federal Judge's Order was to allow the Merchant to charge the fee. The Merchant has the option.
What would be interesting, those States that current will not allow the Merchant to charge a fee, would the Federal Judge's
decision over rule the State law???
Would this also apply to those credit card issuers who do not allow the fee????
Interesting to see what happens.
Judiciary can only strike down laws that are unconstitutional and prohibiting a merchant fee is absolutely allowed by the constitution, thus the state laws will stand.
Well, that's not entirely accurate. Federal law can preempt state law. So there are some state laws that are not in and of themselves unconstitutional, but may nevertheless be impermissible in view of conflicting federal law.
But that's not at issue here. The judge isn't doing anything other than approving a settlement agreement between the parties. He's not passing on the state laws at all.
ETA: I suppose that a law that is preempted could be said to be unconstitutional because the State is acting in an area where authority is reserved to the Federal Government, ultimately by virtue of the Constitution. So perhaps no disagreement between mxp and I. But still, this really has nothing to do with the court passing on state law.
Yes if a state law conflicts with a federal law, then the federal law prevails. The only way the NY anti-surcharge law could be reversed is if congress enacts federal legislation permitting fees, the state legislators repeal the law, or the NY Court of Appeals, a federal court or SCOTUS declares the law unconstititional.
I don't think a state law that is preempted is unconstitutional. The state isn't always necessarily acting in an area reserved for the feds, it could be that the duly enacted state law simply conflicts with a federal statute. A law is only unconstititional if it conflicts with the constitution.
Not always. Like anything with the law, there are always grey areas. Recently, Colorado legalised the posession and use of less than 1oz of Marijuana. That would conflict with existing Federal law. But there is no challenge to the Colorado law. Same thing with same-sex marriage. DOMA defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and yet in 2012 4 more states approved same-sex marriage by action of the voters. That could be construed as a conflict with Federal law. So Federal law does not always preempt State law.
john398 wrote:Glad I live in Texas, however theres a liquor store here that gives a discount for cash/debit card use, isn't that like charging a fee for credit?
Short answer...No. Giving a discount for cash is not the same as using a credit card and being charged a fee. Merchants typically build in to the price of merchandise an amount to account for the swipe fee, so it's already there whenever you buy something and pay with a credit card. Giving a discount for cash is basically the same as saying "buy one/get one" at a reduced cost; it's an enticement to purchase using cash, as "bogo" is an enticement to purchase more than one item at a discounted price.
myFICO is the consumer division of FICO. Since its introduction 20 years ago, the FICO® Score has become a global standard for measuring credit risk in the banking, mortgage, credit card, auto and retail industries. 90 of the top 100 largest U.S. financial institutions use the FICO Score to make consumer credit decisions.
>> About myFICO
