8 ms·

> Well, there's literally nothing they can't try to regulate. You did say try, but according to the constitution they aren't allowed to regulate speech, religi

> Well, there's literally nothing they can't try to regulate. You did say try, but according to the constitution they aren't allowed to regulate speech, religion or the press. (Congress "shall make no law .." abridging these rights).

hayksaakian 13y ago
They have tried and succeeded to regulate those as well Congress can disregard the constitution all they want, and the president can approve all he wants. Only the Judicial branch can actually punish violations of the constitution.
- luckyno13 13y ago
  And since the major decision makers of the Judicial branch are Executive appointees....
  - argumentum 13y ago
    That's too simplistic an implication. Yes, they are appointed by the executive in power, but they have to be approved by congress and it is for life, which means that no single executive/legislature determines the entirety of the SCOTUS. (not saying the Court is always right, of course)
    - logfromblammo 13y ago
      They are also paid in dollars. If Bitcoin were an existential threat to the Federal Reserve banking system, I wouldn't expect them to rule in its favor. The dissenting opinion would probably be worth reading, but there's no way it wouldn't come down at least 5-4 in favor of their own paychecks.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > and it is for life "during good behavior", actually.
      - jfeser 13y ago
        Interestingly, no justice has ever been removed for bad behavior.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Interestingly, no justice has ever been removed for bad behavior. Plenty of lower court judges have been (and one Supreme Court Justice resigned in the face of impeachment, and so was certainly driven by office by the power of Congress to remove him, even if he wasn't, strictly speaking, removed.)
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  They have regulated religion as well. Only certain religions can use, say, peyote in ceremonies. If tonight I get a vision that mandates I must use this chemical with my followers, I don't qualify. There are other exemptions too for religion, where they decide what a real religion is. I think, for instance, conscientious objectors needed to have an approved religion. (There should be no freedom of religion explicitly; it just opens things up for abuse and silly interpretations. Freedom of speech, thought, assembly and so on should be more than enough to include religion.)
  - argumentum 13y ago
    I totally agree it has been misinterpreted, I'm pretty sure the intention of Jefferson and Madison was that the government is not supposed to be able to determine what constitutes a religion in addition the right to believe & practice it* . The inclusion of the word "religion" seems a practical response to the tendency of governments to ban practices that threatened their power. * Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom (from which the 1st amendment is derived)
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      Doesn't "we can't interfere with a religious practice" plus "we can't determine what is a legitimate religious practice" mean anyone can claim anything to be a religious practice? "Oh, I'm sorry, I'm engaged in the blessed sacrament of the mugging."
      - jerf 13y ago
        This is where it's worth remembering that humans are in the justice system by design. While the line is intrinsically fuzzy, one can at least agree that at one extreme a marijuana user coming up for charges who suddenly claims he has a marijuana-based religion in an attempt to get out of it isn't going to get very far. Judges are not required to be as stupid as computers interpreting the law.
logfromblammo 13y ago
The Constitution also says that the states cannot coin money, issue paper money, or make anything but gold and silver coin tender in payment of debts. (Article I, sect. 10, clause 1) Technically, they shouldn't be accepting Federal Reserve Notes as payment for any state taxes, including sales taxes. Note that this clause does not authorize the federal government to declare a legal tender or issue paper money; it simply prohibits the states from doing those things. Thanks to the 10th Amendment, those are reserved exclusively to the people. The wording is a bit tortured, but a logical parse is that powers not delegated to the federation are reserved to the states, and that powers prohibited to the states are reserved to the people. Legal tender, and paper money are not delegated to the federation, but prohibited to the states, therefore they remain the province of the people. There should be no problem with the Federal Reserve printing its own notes, but there's no way in hell that making them legal tender or accepting them for payment on state or federal debts is constitutional. They do it anyway. Hardly anyone cares. Those who do are ignored. As usual, they will do as they please, damn the consequences, and hang it all up under the interstate commerce clause. Edit: Article I, section 8, clause 5 does give the federation the power to coin money and standardize its value. It still doesn't give them the power to accept those coins as payment for debts unless they are gold or silver.
- dailyrorschach 13y ago
  I mean there’s likely no convincing you - but there’s plenty of scholarship to disagree. The Constitution quite clearly gives Congress the power to “coin Money and regulate the value thereof.” It of course makes no additional statement as to how that should be done. It’s a pretty tortuous reading in my opinion and one that would basically be invalid going back to McCulloch v. Maryland to say that coin Money, must only mean metallic alloy coins. Between Expressed Powers and Necessary and Proper there’s certainly enough justification - it relies even less on the Commerce clause.
  - logfromblammo 13y ago
    Unfortunately, it doesn't matter one little bit if you can convince me or not, as I am neither a federal circuit court judge, appellate judge, or supreme court justice. I think it is less important that our money be a particular commodity than it is that the government lack the power to manipulate its value for its own convenience. In my opinion, it is clear that the power to "coin money and regulate the value thereof" is to standardize the exchange rates between coins, probably by weight of the metal, but not necessarily. It is also clear that the coins need not be metal, but also that no one could be forced to accept coins other than gold or silver coins. Thus, they could stamp out wooden nickels, but that wouldn't make them worth anything to anybody, except possibly for payment of federal taxes. As long as we have those, it is only a short hop to rectangular paper "coins". They can do it, but nobody has to accept them. But since nobody is trying to pay taxes with Bitcoin yet, and the federal government isn't mining them, as far as we know, there is no justification for them to be standardized or otherwise regulated whatsoever. It might arguably be authorized under whatever clause, but it certainly isn't justified.

hayksaakian 13y ago

They have tried and succeeded to regulate those as well Congress can disregard the constitution all they want, and the president can approve all he wants. Only the Judicial branch can actually punish violations of the constitution.

luckyno13 13y ago
And since the major decision makers of the Judicial branch are Executive appointees....
- argumentum 13y ago
  That's too simplistic an implication. Yes, they are appointed by the executive in power, but they have to be approved by congress and it is for life, which means that no single executive/legislature determines the entirety of the SCOTUS. (not saying the Court is always right, of course)
  - logfromblammo 13y ago
    They are also paid in dollars. If Bitcoin were an existential threat to the Federal Reserve banking system, I wouldn't expect them to rule in its favor. The dissenting opinion would probably be worth reading, but there's no way it wouldn't come down at least 5-4 in favor of their own paychecks.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > and it is for life "during good behavior", actually.
    - jfeser 13y ago
      Interestingly, no justice has ever been removed for bad behavior.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Interestingly, no justice has ever been removed for bad behavior. Plenty of lower court judges have been (and one Supreme Court Justice resigned in the face of impeachment, and so was certainly driven by office by the power of Congress to remove him, even if he wasn't, strictly speaking, removed.)
MichaelGG 13y ago
They have regulated religion as well. Only certain religions can use, say, peyote in ceremonies. If tonight I get a vision that mandates I must use this chemical with my followers, I don't qualify. There are other exemptions too for religion, where they decide what a real religion is. I think, for instance, conscientious objectors needed to have an approved religion. (There should be no freedom of religion explicitly; it just opens things up for abuse and silly interpretations. Freedom of speech, thought, assembly and so on should be more than enough to include religion.)
- argumentum 13y ago
  I totally agree it has been misinterpreted, I'm pretty sure the intention of Jefferson and Madison was that the government is not supposed to be able to determine what constitutes a religion in addition the right to believe & practice it* . The inclusion of the word "religion" seems a practical response to the tendency of governments to ban practices that threatened their power. * Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom (from which the 1st amendment is derived)
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Doesn't "we can't interfere with a religious practice" plus "we can't determine what is a legitimate religious practice" mean anyone can claim anything to be a religious practice? "Oh, I'm sorry, I'm engaged in the blessed sacrament of the mugging."
    - jerf 13y ago
      This is where it's worth remembering that humans are in the justice system by design. While the line is intrinsically fuzzy, one can at least agree that at one extreme a marijuana user coming up for charges who suddenly claims he has a marijuana-based religion in an attempt to get out of it isn't going to get very far. Judges are not required to be as stupid as computers interpreting the law.

logfromblammo 13y ago

The Constitution also says that the states cannot coin money, issue paper money, or make anything but gold and silver coin tender in payment of debts. (Article I, sect. 10, clause 1) Technically, they shouldn't be accepting Federal Reserve Notes as payment for any state taxes, including sales taxes. Note that this clause does not authorize the federal government to declare a legal tender or issue paper money; it simply prohibits the states from doing those things. Thanks to the 10th Amendment, those are reserved exclusively to the people. The wording is a bit tortured, but a logical parse is that powers not delegated to the federation are reserved to the states, and that powers prohibited to the states are reserved to the people. Legal tender, and paper money are not delegated to the federation, but prohibited to the states, therefore they remain the province of the people. There should be no problem with the Federal Reserve printing its own notes, but there's no way in hell that making them legal tender or accepting them for payment on state or federal debts is constitutional. They do it anyway. Hardly anyone cares. Those who do are ignored. As usual, they will do as they please, damn the consequences, and hang it all up under the interstate commerce clause. Edit: Article I, section 8, clause 5 does give the federation the power to coin money and standardize its value. It still doesn't give them the power to accept those coins as payment for debts unless they are gold or silver.

dailyrorschach 13y ago
I mean there’s likely no convincing you - but there’s plenty of scholarship to disagree. The Constitution quite clearly gives Congress the power to “coin Money and regulate the value thereof.” It of course makes no additional statement as to how that should be done. It’s a pretty tortuous reading in my opinion and one that would basically be invalid going back to McCulloch v. Maryland to say that coin Money, must only mean metallic alloy coins. Between Expressed Powers and Necessary and Proper there’s certainly enough justification - it relies even less on the Commerce clause.
- logfromblammo 13y ago
  Unfortunately, it doesn't matter one little bit if you can convince me or not, as I am neither a federal circuit court judge, appellate judge, or supreme court justice. I think it is less important that our money be a particular commodity than it is that the government lack the power to manipulate its value for its own convenience. In my opinion, it is clear that the power to "coin money and regulate the value thereof" is to standardize the exchange rates between coins, probably by weight of the metal, but not necessarily. It is also clear that the coins need not be metal, but also that no one could be forced to accept coins other than gold or silver coins. Thus, they could stamp out wooden nickels, but that wouldn't make them worth anything to anybody, except possibly for payment of federal taxes. As long as we have those, it is only a short hop to rectangular paper "coins". They can do it, but nobody has to accept them. But since nobody is trying to pay taxes with Bitcoin yet, and the federal government isn't mining them, as far as we know, there is no justification for them to be standardized or otherwise regulated whatsoever. It might arguably be authorized under whatever clause, but it certainly isn't justified.