Topic: Bitcoin transactions made retroactively illegal? (Read 4603 times)

Is possible in Australia but exceedingly rarely used.

The one time I recall it being used was when the government announced that a particular tax evasion scheme known as "bottom of the harbour" would be made illegal. They said there's no law on the books yet, but we will draft and pass one and it will apply from today.

Retrospective legislation is EXTREMELY unpopular.

Tim

2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, the 6th & 7th Amendment has been violated where peoples liberty and or property are in jeopardy and there is no jury, so it's state vs citizen with no unbiased third party, and then the 10th Amendment.

Immunity to double jeopardy is has also been violated, as now they simply just use technicalities so that they can try to convict a person again.

17 Amendment has also caused astronomical damage (abolishing the Senate), along with the 16th amendment. The 3 worst amendments are the 16th, 17th, and 18th. They at least had the smarts to repeal the 18th amendment.

Notice how they needed a constitutional amendment in order to ban alcohol, but they didn't go that route to ban drugs. They needed an amendment to ban alcohol because, the federal government doesn't have the power to declare alcohol illegal, nor do they have the power to declare drugs illegal.

But making a new constitutional amendment is hard, reinterpreting the constitution is much easier, look at how 'General Welfare' has been blown far beyond it's original intention.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-James Madison

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
- James Madison

General Welfare = Taxing everybody exactly the same, and providing them the same exact benefits.
Not General Welfare = Taxing people differently, and only some are able to qualify for benefits. Redistribution of wealth is not general welfare.

Social security and Medicare violate the constitution as well. Doesn't mean we can't have those things, but it's the job of the state to implement those types of systems, the federal government doesn't have that power. Nearly every single law that exists violates the 10th amendment.

If congress obeyed the constitution, they'd really have nothing to do. They'd probably only be in session one month out of a year.

Could someone tell how many clauses of the US Constitution, percent-wise, are being routinely violated in US? 0, 5, 10, 20, 50?

AFAIK there is no 'Habeas Corpus' in force for a while now while there is no Rebellion and no Invasion.

Now another question.

Could someone tell how many clauses of the US Constitution related to money, percent-wise, are being routinely violated in US? 0, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100?

Yes, we have fallen far. I don't agree with the current flavor of judicial review, and think justices should be term limited. That being said, we all still see that there is a basis for laws with which the machines, both ours and theirs, must work.

The issue still resolves to the fact that the Constitution is still the basis for US Federal law/operations, and that operation can not retroactively screw someone. They can be put on notice for said-plundering, and they can plunder in the present, but they can't be historically plundered.

Just think of it like this: if they did outlaw btc transactions, best chain history will provide is circumstantial evidence for crimes of the present.

That, and think of the fact that most every law now clearly has an enforcement date in the future. The man doesn't want his hard legislation overturned on "constitutionality."

The states (aka the people), ARE the ultimate interpreters of the United States Constitution, not the Federal Supreme Court.

James Madisons words, not mine.

The founders were not stupid, they knew that the FEDERAL Supreme Court could be baised in favor of unconstitutional federal laws.

If you like, go read up on the history of the creation of the Senate and the House, and why the Senate is the entity that confirms supreme court justices.

Then investigate the abolition of the senate in 1913 (it has been converted into a second house of reps that they just call senate)

My my, how far we have fallen from the tree.

No, the Constitution works pretty well where applicable (it's not the only law). Last I checked I don't have troops quartered in my house, nor If you don't like the interpretation of it, contact the interpreters :-)

Now who, o who, interprets law? If only there were people who interpreted law...

...And citizens who knew the power they wield, not the powers they yield....

Constitution, oh that thing?  That thing in the museum that the government rides roughshod over on a daily basis? 

Ha ha ha ha ha ha, very funny.

I think the Bitcoin system is really cool with many nice features such as distributed control, open source, secure transactions and having a real intrinsic reserve value. Then there are some not so good things imo such as too much fluctuation in value to be practical as a real currency, and too deflationary, and too limited (and in the long run decreasing) supply, and too cumbersome decimal placement, and too easy to corner the market of, and too slow transactions taking several minutes each.

For example the UN should issue a new digital currency similar to Bitcoin that most if not all government would agree on. Similar to Bitcoin but improved and approved. 

Since when does the Constitution mean anything to our politicians anymore?


My condolences for being a product of our public school system. Perhaps this might help you get started on what you should have been taught.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sNWbiAMf80

Have a nice day.

From a formalist perspective, many (though not all) bodies of law have restrictions against retroactive criminalization or punishment. The United States is one of these---the constitution forbids ex post facto application of law.

From a realist perspective, this hasn't stopped the government from slapping ever-more-arduous restrictions on people convicted of sex crimes, even if those crimes were committed thirty years ago, because being forced to live under a bridge after you are pushed out of every residential zone and forbidden to leave the county isn't "punishment." There's nothing to stop the legislature from passing a 500,000% tax on all e-currency income, defining "e-currency" so narrowly that Bitcoin is the only one in existence, and applying this to the 2011 tax year. This would probably be upheld by SCOTUS since they've been so willing to interpret the law in a robotic manner in the past (see their decision that any finite number of years is a "limited term" w.r.t. copyright---thus the next copyright extension will probably be to 100,000,000,000,000 years). This would effectively ban the use of Bitcoin in the United States, retroactively to January 1.

You guys are all living in fairy land if you think governments let codified laws stop them from doing whatever they heck they want.

This is one more reason why Bitcoins are such a great thing for the world!
It takes financial control away from the state, and gives it to the individual.

True, but the worst case scenario is not worth considering, like the universe exploding the next second.

On the other hand the best case scenario is worth considering. Who would like to be 100% legal? I would, I mean I AM! Not even trillions of dollars would make me do anything illegal. And I don't take chances. So I don't trade with bitcoins since that may be illegal.

More likely, yes, but not the worst case scenario. =P

No, not really. Ex post facto situations tend to be obvious.

Yeah, that is probably more likely something that could happen. Nasty.

Yeah, I guessed it meant something like that but I was too lazy to look it up, mainly because the rest of the text seemed so complicated.

I doubt that any democratic country can make retroactive laws for Bitcoins (other than interpreting existing laws), but what they can do is to tax bitcoin transactions retroactively.

ex post fac·to  (ks pst fkt)
adj.
Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. Used especially of a law.

- The Dictionary.

Maybe they can't make a new law apply to past actions but they can certainly misapply/reinterpret some old law and apply it to past actions.

In national Danish law, as a curiosity, I know that there is nothing in the constitution or elsewhere to prevent making laws that retroactively make things illegal.

In reality however, it is frowned upon, and almost unthinkable in the world of punitive law.