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.
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.