Bitcoin Forum

So, I looked over everything on that subject and didn't see anything directly related to my question. I set up a blog recently to focus on this and a few other btc related issues I'm thinking about. Here's a copy of my post on the subject. If I'm wrong, tell me how so I have a chance to think about it. If your point makes no sense I won't be responding. Thanks in advance.
--------------------------------------------
On the Legal Implications of Bitcoin
One of the biggest questions surrounding bitcoin acceptance is the supposed murky area of it's legal status. I say "supposed" because it seems to me there is a faulty assumption that since it's a new thing there must not be any regulations that take it into account accurately. Thus, assumed murkiness. At least in the case of the United States I think there may in fact be a clear definition that has been ignored. I would like to open a public discussion specifically on the legal issues as I think acceptance is dependent upon such. This is not to be confused with legal advice, which should obviously come from a lawyer. The public certainly has a right to discuss the possibilities and so please, let me know your thoughts on the subject.

That being said here are a few things I've come across in my research so far:

The US Constitution seems to provide for a "right to contract" which would include bitcoin. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia that provides more detail (emphasis added);

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause

"The Contract Clause appears in the United States Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 1. It states:

    No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility"

The entry further states:
"The Framers of the Constitution added this clause in response to the fear that states would continue a practice that had been widespread under the Articles of Confederation—that of granting "private relief." Legislatures would pass bills relieving particular persons (predictably, influential persons) of their obligation to pay their debts. It was this phenomenon that also prompted the framers to make bankruptcy law the province of the federal government."

So, this was a prohibition against the states to keep the private right to contract intact. There is no such prohibition against the federal government because there doesn't need to be. There is no authority granted to the federal government to restrict, alter or abolish contracts and the tenth amendment clearly states that unless the authority is explicitly granted then the feds can't touch it.

Now, I'm no Polly Anna. I'm aware of the long history of the abuse of the Commerce Clause, and I'm also aware that the power to COIN money is granted to the congress. I think neither of these two issues apply to bitcoin as a right to contract as the Commerce Clause was clearly intended (unless you're really into revisionist history) to regulate commerce DISPUTES between the states only and the coining of money clause merely says the federal government is authorized to do so and in NO WAY prohibits private citizens from their right to contract. Any regulations, accounting rules, executive orders or even laws DO NOT over rule the Constitution and therefore would be of no legal force. Any instances of force being used to interfere with the right to contract would be done under the color of law and would in fact be subject to criminal penalties. Furthermore, any legal standing the Congress may have in this matter has been forfeited due to the fact they have illegally abrogated their duty to issue the money by transferring their authority to a private corporation. This is an important point. NO branch of the US federal government may (morally or legally) abrogate their duties to any other branch of government nor any other entity.

So, I don't have to be right on all the details here, the fundamental point is whether or not the right to contract exists. If it does then trading with bitcoins is in fact a constitutionally protected right. Given the long history of abuse by the establishment under color of law you can expect there to be pro-tyranny views expressed. During my research I also came across a really good article examining the right to contract from the perspective of prostitution.

Here: http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/wua2.shtml

Some good points the article made:
"Prostitution is never mentioned in the Constitution. I believe the following stipulations of the Constitution are relevant here:

    Article I, Section 10: "No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts."
    Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding... All executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution."
    Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
    Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
    Amendment XIII, Section 1: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

A central issue is whether a person owns his or her body. For the government or state to own our bodies would be slavery. But the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. Clearly, this means that we as individuals own our bodies, not the state or government.
Article I, Section 10 effectively guarantees the right to contract and prohibits any State from passing any law that impairs this right. It seems to me that a person who owns his or her body has the right to "contract out" the use of that body for the pleasure of another - provided no rights are violated.
There is also a Common Law principle which states that for there to be a crime, there has to be a victim (corpus delecti). In the absence of a victim there can be no crime."

And it makes a very strong closing point with this (emphasis added):

"A famous court case indicates how the Constitution was understood at one time:
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1906).

Does the idea that the government has the power to interfere with the voluntary sexual activities of individuals imply that citizens are "state property" and that the U.S. Constitution in practice means nothing?"

So, there are many court cases on this subject I'm sure. I think it is important to take into account the supremacy issue in this regard as anything less than a constitutional amendment may be irrelevant. The legal definitions are important at least to the extent that people can morally embrace what they have been told is somehow wrong. I believe there IS an unalienable right to contract. This is evident in nature and to anyone with common sense. The framers of the Constitution actually seem to have gone out of their way to protect it. In India monkeys roam the streets unmolested due to the reverence for the monkey God Hanuman. They have learned to steal shiny things from tourists and then trade it for a piece of fruit with one of the many street vendors. Does this not provide evidence that the right to contract is a natural right? Will the monkeys end up with more rights than humanity?

Please chime in if you have even the slightest interest. I hope the topic gains more clarity and will do my best to respond to any input, critical or otherwise.
--------------------------------
btcnoodle.blogspot.com

I don't think it's realistic to think of Bitcoin as a contract.

Regardless, yes you have a right to trade.  That is outside the purview of the commerce clause.  And you have a right to contract, within certain limits.

No, the day they will notice bitcoin harms their interest then it will become the currency of terrorists and thus made illegal. After all if you are a honest person you use dollars!

I think you've done some good research.  Hopefully, a lawyer has time to opine.  Until then, here are my thoughts:

1) I don't think we need any more references to prostitution, and I'm not sure why your description started discussing whether the states own us.

2) The constitution is an old piece of paper that has many amendments (which looks like you've combed through) and many interpretations over the years.  One next step may be to review cases to see where courts have given rulings on related matters.

3) Maybe look at what laws/regulations/constitution give the power to the Federal Reserve to issue dollars and for them to be deemed legal tender.

The person who posted about how the government will consider people who use dollars are "honest" while people using bitcoins are terrorists may be how congress positions it to suit their owns needs.

We won't know until some court cases start issuing rulings or if congress is approached for laws/regulations.  Then your research will be used and our questions will start to get answered.

ciao

I don't think bitcoin itself is a contract, but using it between private parties would be. Also, your statement that it is subject to certain limits is wrong according to this court ruling (in my original post):
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47'

I disagree. What you're really saying is it doesn't matter if it's legal or not, if someone wants to take away your rights you will just let them. If there IS a natural right to contract, protected under the constitution then nothing short of a constitutional amendment could make it illegal. If any one tries to deny that right it is they who are the criminal, and subject to the law as such. You shouldn't be so willing to let someone run you over just because you think they have some divine right to rule.

1) The reference to prostitution was from the article I quoted. The author of that stated he did not support prostitution but was using it as a hypothetical to discuss the issue of right to contract. I don't support prostitution either but I do support the idea that if people want to do that it's not my decision. Given the media perceptions of bitcoin vis a vis the illegal market however I do get your point.

2) Again, nothing short of a constitutional amendment repealing the right to contract could change the original intent, which was clearly to give the people the right to contract with no third party involved, especially the govt. This is a key point however and the input of some real constitutional lawyers would be great. A very important point is that if it's true that this falls under a constitutional protection than all other 'legislation' is moot.

3) The situation with the fed reserve is purely unconstitutional, illegal and immoral, as has been stated by many before me. Just because they still get away with it provides no legal legitimacy. The supreme court has ruled that no branch of govt may abrogate it's duties. So, the congress acted in an illegal manner when it transferred this authority to a private entity. Furthermore, as outlined in the tenth amendment just because the congress was given the authority to COIN money doesn't mean there are restrictions placed on the people. This only grants an authority to the congress, does NOT declare it a monopoly in any way and in NO WAY creates a limitation on the people. Technically, it is the fed reserve who is counterfeiting as the constitution clearly states that money will be coin. Nothing about scrip in there.

I know that reality and the law may not be in concert but the point I'm trying to get at is what is it's legal status. After that is established then we can ask the question 'what do I do about a criminal cartel imposing it's will on everyone through force and coercion'. Oh wait, that's what bitcoin answers....cool.

Who cares?

USA != THE WORLD

Not trying to be US centric per se. It's just that if we want to start getting answers to the legal questions it must be discussed in the context of legal jurisdictions. Since the US central banking system will likely be the biggest opponent of bitcoin adoption it seems strategically important to establish legal use in the US. If that could be done it would go a loooong way towards adoption globally.

Legality will only hinder progress and research.

I don't think this can be said as a foregone conclusion. While I do understand your point there must come a time when bitcoin can be used for transactions in the light of day. Unless you want it to be forever relegated to the underworld the legal issues must be addressed. Another important distinction is that establishing legality doesn't necessarily equate to seeking permission. If my premise is correct then it is merely a matter of asserting your unalienable right, nothing to do with conforming to some man-made construct. The legal status I'm proposing would have been in effect before bitcoin was even invented therefore would have no effect on progress. I think your point is more about timing. If you want to say it's premature to start discussing the legal issues I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.

The US Constitution was an experiment. It failed. It's time for a (bloodless this time) revolution. Bitcoin is the shot heard 'round the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_heard_%27round_the_world). There will be a new world order, but not one forced upon We the People, but by science and reason.

My intent with this thread was to explore the questions:

1) Is bitcoin protected by the US Constitution under the 'right to contract' clause?

2) What are the implications of the answer to question 1 relative to bitcoin

Your response does not address these questions and is highly subjective. It is also factually incorrect as evidenced by the letter sent from the Justice Department to the Federal courts recently regarding the authority of the courts relative to the executive branch. Were you aware that the constitution also provides for a series of bloodless revolutions? You espouse reason and then dismiss my premise by ad hominem attack. I challenge you to demonstrate your understanding of reason by refuting any of the points I've made with an actual rebuttal.

Your point is well made. Now try to stop the US Government from simply ignoring the US Constitution as they do so frequently. My ad hominem is not directed at you, but to the entire legal industry that produces greedy, socially bankrupt attorneys.

These are important points for sure. Here's where for me it starts to get really interesting. Ask yourself how is it that this pattern of government over-reach has emerged? How did it (the state) become this leviathan extending it's tentacles into every aspect of your life? The answer is simple, control of the monetary system to allow fiat currency (petro-dollar). Thus it seems simple to me that to take that away would remove the ability for deficit spending and reign in foreign imperialism and usher in a new age of personal liberty. Do I need to elaborate on the positive effects globally if we didn't have to deal with a state of permanent war? I believe bitcoin has emerged as a spontaneously ordered system essentially as a rejection of the old order in favor of the 'new order' much as you described. The history of controversy over central banking goes all the way back to the start of the country and I feel bitcoin has just become the next chapter in the total history of monetary systems. The difference this time is that the technical means to deny arbitrary and imposed controls over the individual control of your money exists. That's the truly unique aspect of bitcoin. It's the first to actually achieve (so far) technical independence of the old order. So I think any attempts to go after bitcoin in the US will run afoul of the principles I'm talking about here. If people know it's not illegal it changes the equation when they think about using it in their daily lives. The question of legality is important in that regard. One thing I know for sure is that generally in life you are solely responsible for the defense of your rights. You certainly don't want to wait for a banker to do it for you. If bitcoin is attacked in a legal arena it would behoove the community to have some thoughts on the matter.

While understanding that what the law actually says and what happens in the real world may be different, I do not believe in abandoning a morally and legally sound position due to threat of force. This is coercion. If you have a right and someone conspires to deny or disparage that right it is they who are in the wrong. It is a fools bargain to think that by allowing yourself to be run over roughshod by any bandits that come along that they will show you mercy and give you a position of elevated privilege. So, I want to first establish the legal reasoning so that when the time comes that bandits ride in to plunder under color of law we are not caught with blank stares.

Lawyers don't opine.  They follow the law.  The US is a common law jurisdiction.  We make the laws ourselves.


That's a good quote.  I simply meant that one's right to contract, while unlimited in the ideal sense, is practically limited.  There are plenty of limits regarding, eg. implied contracts, contracts with minors, interpretation, consensus and enforcement, etc.  Contracting is not an individual right.  So it is limited in that sense.

Such limits upon the right to contract, if possible would have to take place at the state level as there's no federal authority but they (the states) are clearly prohibited from doing so. The feds MUST be able to point to where in the constitution they derive the authority for any legislation. The burden of proof is on the fedgov, not the people. I disagree that the right to contract is not an individual right. Are you saying the right to contract is a collective right? I'm wondering how you took the court ruling which says 'individual may stand upon....right to contract is unlimited' and turned that around to it being a limited collective right which in fact is the exact opposite of what it says?

Right now the question is:

Is trading a Mathematical formula legal?  A place holder in a shared abstract world.

The best that any deterrers could do is make it difficult to do, illegal or not.

But if it is against the constitution, I would make it under the: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness clause.



Particularly under: acquiring and possessing property - because if stoping a person from acquiring an abstract piece of property is legal, then the 'state' controls our thoughts and ideas.

And:

obtaining happiness and safety - 'safety' of ones monetary wealth is a right. If not, then people transferring to Gold from fiat is also illegal as it is also a form of monetary safety to protect ones wealth.

For me the important questions are:

1) Is there a natural right to contract?
2) Is bitcoin protected by the USConstitution under the 'right to contract' clause?

As to the document you quoted, that's from the State of Virginia Declaration of Rights, not the US Constitution. Perhaps you meant the US Declaration of Independence? Only the Constitution has legal force. The Declaration of Independence and the state constitutions are relevant only in regards to historical context, understanding the intent of the law giver, language of the day, etc. In order to keep the issue limited to the questions above I'm going to try and research a very narrow line of reasoning. I already feel that the answers to both of my questions are yes. I think it's a good idea to do a lot more digging into relevant past cases. When the authorities tried to shut down bittorent, napster, etc. they used a legal basis involving copyright law. This gave them a supposed reason to pursue legal action. In the case of bitcoin what would their legal case be? If I'm right then they would have no legal basis. If there ever is a court case they must declare why the fedgov is arbitrarily denying citizens their rights on a massive scale and it just wouldn't fly. This is not the 1910's any more. There's much more scrutiny now and the old tricks no longer work. This time they will be met by multitudes of everyday people calling them out on their BS.

1) Is there a natural right to contract?

I would have to rephrase the question then:

Is there a natural right to an enforceable contract under law?

This would then bring in the question of legalities of the contract. Yes two people can agree to something, but that agreement may not be enforceable. Hence, if BTC is determined illegal, it will be like 'drug dealing contracts'.

The first question is:

Is BTC legal to trade for other items?

I find this a ridiculous proposition. If people want to trade dirt, who am I to disagree. If they want to trade and abstract item, then again, who am I to disagree. The government cares because taking 30% of the Dirt Pile is a problem. Taking 30% of an abstract item is even more of a problem.

However, the Interstate Commerce Clause will be used to the greatest detriment for BTC. The problem being enforcement. This is why development needs to be watched very closely. This is where the attack to the system will come from in my opinion.

If BTC becomes a threat, I do believe the government will try to take it over. It is imperative that these systems remain as decentralized as possible.

In the end, I see governments world wide switching to a sales tax on real world items. It will be tiered from raw material to the final product purchase.

Legal implies an enforceable concept. If a concept is not enforceable, legality becomes moot.

Even in the complete absence of a state, natural rights can be limited.  Your right to reproduce, for instance, has some limits.


Are you in the habit of contracting with yourself?

Generally:

The contract clause and the reading of a natural right of freedom to contract into the constitution has been all but done away with since the 'Lochner era' (http://www.amazon.com/Rehabilitating-Lochner-Defending-Individual-Progressive/dp/0226043533). This is an unfortunate set of circumstances. However, all indications are that this court is not interested in reviving it (nor will it likely have the opportunity to do so) in the near future.

There are many other legal concepts that have more immediate impacts on Bitcoin.

Edit: Lochner and ACA (http://volokh.com/2012/04/09/the-washington-post-on-lochner-and-the-aca/)

"I would have to rephrase the question then:

Is there a natural right to an enforceable contract under law?"

Answer: No, the primal right to contract is buyer beware/vendor beware. It's also a logical impossibility since the natural right exists before the law, hence there can be no right to protection of the law. I think it's important not to confuse rights with privileges.

"Such limits upon the right to contract, if possible would have to take place at the state level

Even in the complete absence of a state, natural rights can be limited.  Your right to reproduce, for instance, has some limits.
"
Comment: Here I mean states as opposed to the fedgov, not the generic 'state' as in nation-state.

"I disagree that the right to contract is not an individual right.
Are you saying the right to contract is a collective right?

Are you in the habit of contracting with yourself?"

The idea of collective rights is a pure fiction. There is no such thing. There are collective privileges but a natural right can not possibly be collective as to remove the individual from the society would be to remove the so-called collective right. The very definition of unalienable (aka natural) rights is a right which can not be removed from the individual. Therefore, if a right can be removed from an individual by removing them from society it is not unalienable. Hence, it is logically impossible for collective rights to exist. It has long been considered by the courts (and recently acknowledged by the Supreme Court) that all rights are inherently individual. The idea of collective rights is a dishonest attempt to enslave most people for the benefits of a few. I challenge you to show me ONE piece of evidence from the US constitution to support your idea that rights are collective.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy to say that because you can't contract with yourself that the right to contract MUST be a collective right. First of all, you can and often do contract with yourself. A new year's eve resolution is just one example. Second, if you apply your thinking to the first amendment does the fact that you generally need someone else to carry on a conversation mean that the right to free speech is a collective right? Obviously not and we also talk to ourselves sometimes, yes?

This is the most substantial input yet I think. Thanks for the info. I'm going to be reviewing the case you mentioned and try to get a better context of how we got to the current interpretation. A cursory glance at society will tell you things are out of balance from the original intent so I guess we should be asking ourselves how a restoration can be brought about. One quick comment on the issue of the commerce clause as was pointed out by BTC_Bear;

The courts have said that the constitution can't contradict itself. This means that if something is added that is in conflict with something that was already there then the last thing to be added is invalid. This is why the income tax is 'voluntary'. Otherwise it would be in conflict with the right to contract clause. The authors of the income tax openly discussed this point and had to put in the voluntary thing even though they preferred it to be compulsory. If it's voluntary then an individual can 'choose' to engage in the contract or not. In the case of the commerce clause it is unreasonable to think that it would have been intended to remove the individual right to contract as enumerated in article 1 section 10. Furthermore there is ample historical evidence that it was intended to regulate disputes between the states only, no effect on the individual right to contract.

An important point I want to make before I sign off; I'm aware that the pure interpretations may not jive with the reality of today. I am still focused on the moral fundamentals as the basis of law and would like to see things restored to the point that govt protects the rights of the individual instead of plundering everything under color of law. The first step in knowing where you are going is to know where you stand.

Thanks to everyone that has commented, all input is valuable. I'm going to take a break from responding for a while so I can do some more digging. I'll be back once I have more information that is useful.

Let's just say this.  You have an unlimited, individual right to contract.  Okay.  You can sign yourself into slavery if you'd like.  But your right to enforce a contract is limited by the rights of the co-party.  And the right to liberty is more fundamental than the right to slavery contracts.  So your slavery contract can be broken.

And this is completely aside from any "law impairing the obligation of contracts."  It is a matter of rights, which supercede both law and contracts, even the Constitution.

As a side note, I think it is useful to consider the distinction between commerce and trade in framing the limits to the right to contract, especially with regard to Bitcoin.

tl; dr

Right to contract is low on the list vis-a-vis bitcoin. Much higher on the list, IMO:

1st Am. Free Speech

4th Am. 5th Am. 6th Am. Information Privacy

Ok, after doing a little more research I came across exactly the sort of detail I was looking for. At first I thought I would start poring through case histories but decided I would likely be reinventing the wheel. What I realized was that it would be great if I could find a respected constitutional expert discussing the relevant points versus having to examine 200 plus years of court history. So I started thinking who that expert might be and for me there's one person who stands above the rest, Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr. Within a half an hour of having this thought I was watching this video, uploaded on the 9th of April:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mI8Lek60_w&feature=relmfu

Here are some specific points he makes relative to this discussion;

2:44 "the plan is basically an attempt to create an alternative competitive currency so that you will have federal reserve currency continuing to circulate to the extent that it will, but on the other hand people can use an alternative"

3:15 "on the other hand an average person could certainly use an alternative currency because in the united stated federal reserve notes are not required to be used as money"

3:50 "most people don't however (use alternative currencies) because there's a lack of knowledge of the existence of that alternative"

4:00 "the third (Congress being the first, the people being the second) alternative is the middle level which is the state government"

10:05 "in point of fact federal reserve notes do not have to be accepted if you've made your contract payable in some other medium of exchange. And in fact the federal title 31 of the United States code that you just mentioned has a provision section 5118 dii which specifies that"

12:29 "so if the state chooses to use some alternative currency for those purposes (state collections) the supreme court has already said that's protected by the constitution"

34:39 "the state has the constitutional power to do it (adopt alternative currencies), the state has the duty to perform this function"


So, for me the issue is well settled. There IS a right to use bitcoin in the US both at the individual and state levels. Dr. Vieira suggests an emphasis on the state level approach because he feels there is no mechanism to implement it at the individual level. I think he may be unaware of bitcoin as it does provide this individual mechanism. Taking that additional detail into account I'm going to agree with everything he says but add that while approaching the issue at the state level is a good approach that we could augment our efforts with bitcoin at the personal level. Both if these working together will increase the chance of adoption. If anyone disagrees with his assessment you'll have to take it up with him and the court of public opinion. Thanks again for all the input.

Interesting find.

By his argument, a state could adopt Bitcoin without making it legal tender.  That's not controversial.  Even in this economy, states (even small states*) control vast discretionary funds.  So even if you ignore his suggestion to collect taxes in an alternative currency, this could be huge.  I've been suggesting for almost a year now that this is exactly what Bitcoin needs -- local economy.  And it's clear that in the very near future, states may be in dire need of an alternative like Bitcoin.

Right now, though, a small state without a large dependence on the Federal Reserve System could generate local economic growth merely by paying some percentage of contracts and salaries in Bitcoins.  Even if the Bitcoins don't remain and circulate in the local economy, the effect of rescuing a small part of the local economy from the FED's money-printing, and attaching it to an alternative currency instead would be extremely beneficial.

The problem with this plan, unfortunately, is that Bitcoin is not the best choice.  Bitcoin requires some investment in transaction processing equipment to be a good local alternative.  His suggestion of centralized gold-backed accounts is easier to implement at the moment, though still not without it's own issues.  An electronic state currency system based on mag-stripe cards would have all of the fraud-risk of a credit card, with none of the economies of scale.  Smart cards would be more expensive, and would necessitate investment in point-of-sale readers.  But the benefits of bridging that hurdle could be huge, and would open the door to Bitcoin as well.

*New Hampshire, for instance, in 2006 generated annual revenue at the state level of 3.7 billion dollars.

Just stop calling it a currency. Now it is a "resource". There. Technically it's just bartering now and no law is broken.

It is technically trade, but that's all currencies are as well and there's no law against alternative currencies anyways.

Agreed, it does come down to the legality of alternative currencies. My original question regarding the contract clause is a less effective approach given the Lochner case as mentioned earlier in the thread. As Dr. Vieira points out clearly alternative currencies certainly are legal in the US. In the video he mentions several efforts at the state level, including Utah. It seems like they just recently passed a new law very much along the lines of what was discussed in the video;

Utah Now Accepts Gold and Silver
http://www.insidefutures.com/article/596887/Utah%20Now%20Accepts%20Gold%20and%20Silver%20.html (http://www.insidefutures.com/article/596887/Utah%20Now%20Accepts%20Gold%20and%20Silver%20.html)

Pretty big news actually.

If you say so. It addresses a problem that doesn't exist. This law will not affect Bitcoin in any way.