AML Unconstitutional, Even by Modern Court's Standards?

[theonewhowaskazu]

The Citizens United ruling states that "spending is speech". Ignore the "corporations are people" bit for now. Point is, that spending money is a form of speech, according to the US supreme court.

Also, slightly more dubiously, but still with fairly strong precedent, anonymous speech is protected under the free speech amendment. Its pretty much a given that one can make anonymous speech whenever, one can't be denied the right to speak because he or she did not present an ID, for example. However, there have been cases in which anonymous speakers have been compelled to release their identity after the fact if their speech was false and supposedly caused monetary damage to a third party.

Given this logic, doesn't it seem incredibly hard to legally justify AML laws, which in cases can specifically state:
"Required the verification of identity of purchasers..." (Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988)

Do you think there's any chance these laws could actually be eventually overturned if brought to the supreme court?

[1715270185]

1715270185

[1715270185]

1715270185

[1715270185]

1715270185

[1715270185]

1715270185

[1715270185]

1715270185

[1715270185]

1715270185

[Full Spectrum]

The Citizens United ruling states that "spending is speech". Ignore the "corporations are people" bit for now. Point is, that spending money is a form of speech, according to the US supreme court.

Also, slightly more dubiously, but still with fairly strong precedent, anonymous speech is protected under the free speech amendment. Its pretty much a given that one can make anonymous speech whenever, one can't be denied the right to speak because he or she did not present an ID, for example. However, there have been cases in which anonymous speakers have been compelled to release their identity after the fact if their speech was false and supposedly caused monetary damage to a third party.

Given this logic, doesn't it seem incredibly hard to legally justify AML laws, which in cases can specifically state:
"Required the verification of identity of purchasers..." (Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988)

Do you think there's any chance these laws could actually be eventually overturned if brought to the supreme court?

I'm not going to doubt that anything can happen, AML could be overturned. But the an argument against overturning AML is that you have the freedom to spend your money anyway you want it, but you aren't compelled by any law to have a bank account, bank accounts are privileges, not rights.

[theonewhowaskazu]

The Citizens United ruling states that "spending is speech". Ignore the "corporations are people" bit for now. Point is, that spending money is a form of speech, according to the US supreme court.

Also, slightly more dubiously, but still with fairly strong precedent, anonymous speech is protected under the free speech amendment. Its pretty much a given that one can make anonymous speech whenever, one can't be denied the right to speak because he or she did not present an ID, for example. However, there have been cases in which anonymous speakers have been compelled to release their identity after the fact if their speech was false and supposedly caused monetary damage to a third party.

Given this logic, doesn't it seem incredibly hard to legally justify AML laws, which in cases can specifically state:
"Required the verification of identity of purchasers..." (Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988)

Do you think there's any chance these laws could actually be eventually overturned if brought to the supreme court?

I'm not going to doubt that anything can happen, AML could be overturned. But the an argument against overturning AML is that you have the freedom to spend your money anyway you want it, but you aren't compelled by any law to have a bank account, bank accounts are privileges, not rights.

Now it depends what's money and what's a product. I'm pretty sure super pacs didnt go around accepting envelopes filled with cash. Yet that was considered a form of speech. So clearly checkbook money, not just m0, is money, and therefore is speech. So, given that I have the right to anonymously transfer checkbook money, now what? Maybe some AML can live (they can regulate the sale of equities if they like, that's not money so they can require ID for people to buy them just like if people were to buy cigarettes) but clearly most of it goes down the tube with the citizens united ruling, no?

And even if they could regulate banks, and get my ID, it wouldnt do any good. If the bank wanted to allow me to donate money to terrorists, and I did too, surely the government couldn't stop me, the same way the government couldn't stop me if I wanted to support terrorist groups by distributing pamphlets describing how cool they are, no?

[wasserman99]

AML does not prevent people from spending their money, but rather forces a person to be identified when you participate in certain transactions. Additionally buying BTC or depositing cash in the bank would generally not be considered "spending money" but rather holding money, and would likely not be considered to be "speech" in this regard.

[Mobius]

The Citizens United ruling states that "spending is speech". Ignore the "corporations are people" bit for now. Point is, that spending money is a form of speech, according to the US supreme court.

Also, slightly more dubiously, but still with fairly strong precedent, anonymous speech is protected under the free speech amendment. Its pretty much a given that one can make anonymous speech whenever, one can't be denied the right to speak because he or she did not present an ID, for example. However, there have been cases in which anonymous speakers have been compelled to release their identity after the fact if their speech was false and supposedly caused monetary damage to a third party.

Given this logic, doesn't it seem incredibly hard to legally justify AML laws, which in cases can specifically state:
"Required the verification of identity of purchasers..." (Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988)

Do you think there's any chance these laws could actually be eventually overturned if brought to the supreme court?

I'm not going to doubt that anything can happen, AML could be overturned. But the an argument against overturning AML is that you have the freedom to spend your money anyway you want it, but you aren't compelled by any law to have a bank account, bank accounts are privileges, not rights.

I can't draw the connection between AML and using money for speech. If someone who has money wants to use money to make a statement they are free to do so. What they can't do is move money around without it being reported.

[pungopete468]

The question is really this: Is AML unconstitutional when a US citizen willingly chooses to send money to a group labelled a "terrorist organization?"

Our founding fathers were terrorists according to the kings court. Choosing to support a militant group is a rational and reasonable last resort for those who don't want or are unable to fight physically against injustice for themselves.

AML is unconstitutional, spending money in protest is constitutionally protected, and that includes potentially donating to militant groups once a person has determined that to be necessary. My problem lies in the root of the "terrorist organization." That's not a black and white distinction...

Judge a law not for the good it can cause while administered justly, but for the damage it may cause while administered unjustly...