I agree. Regardless of one's stance on drugs and their respective online black markets (the latter of which I had a sizable knowledge), I don't really see what Shrem's expected outcome of this could have been other than, well, what happened.
There is no provision in the constitution for the federal government to regulate money exchange. Thus the law he was convicted under is itself a criminal act (and under USC 18-242 everyone enforcing it is a felon).
The constitution is the highest law of the land. If you think this guy belongs in jail, then you need to amend it.
The supreme court has already ruled that unconstitutional laws are null and void the moment they are passed. They do not need to be struck down by the supreme court.
Remember the legislature, executive and judicial branches all derive their power from the constitution, thus none of them have the power to exceed the power it gives them, by definition.
The real problem here is not that people haven't changed the law (which they can't since the people are not in power).
The problem is we have a criminal syndicate for a government.
This is why there are no prosecutions for spying on the NSA's part, despite breaking the law. This is why the TSA violates the fourth amendment with impunity (again, a violation of USC 18-242) without ever there being charges filed.
Hell, the TSA is violating state criminal statutes in most states when they molest minors who opt out of having their nude photos taken (which itself is child pornography).
No charges have been filed. Why is that?
So, we can't really say we have the "rule of law" here.
The law only is used against people like Charlie, never against the rulers.
The Constitution granted the Federal Government limited powers. But included in those powers is the power to self-define and self-regulate.
Thus, should the legislature pass a law, and should the Supreme Court uphold that law, it is deemed Constitutional by the body specifically-empowered to make that determination.
The Money Laundering Control Act made the laundering of money a crime. It was passed by the Legislative branch of the Federal Government as prescribed by the Constitution.
The MLCA has been upheld by the Supreme Court, or rather, cases have been brought before in which the government's prosecution has rested on enforcement of the law, and the Justices have upheld it by interpreting the law, as written, without deeming it unconstitutional (Santos, Schueller, etc.)
Thus, the law is Constitutional pending some future case.
In order to rebut what I said, you would need to show where the federal government is given this power in the enumerated powers clause. You have not.
What you have merely done is engage, effectively in ad hominem along with a string of irrelevant assertions that to an in unformed, or unthinking reader might sound like an argument.
And of course, in grand hacker news tradition, downvote me so that people cannot see my comment, for the "crime" of making an argument that undermines your political ideology.
Something isn't 'Constitutional pending some future case'; it either is or is not constitutional, period. It may be recognised as or presumed constitutional or not which I think is what you mean.
Regarding money transfer, I think it's clear that the Congress has the ability to regulate interstate and international money transfers. Whether it should or not is an entirely different matter.
Despite the current (ludicrous) interpretation of the commerce clause, the Congress has no authority over intrastate money transfers whatsoever; that authority rests with the states.
PS- you're using the term "money laundering" wrong. The same way that anyone the government doesn't like is labeled a terrorist, perfectly legal and innocent activities not associated with any crime are called "money laundering" under this law.
This is how propaganda is used to cause people to tell lies without even realizing it.
When you pay your credit card off from your checking account, but took money from your savings account first, that is "money laundering" under the law.
Simply stating that the Commerce Clause and the Coinage Clause are dead letter law not intended to regulate the exchange of money doesn't make it true. Your interpretation of the law disagrees with more than 200 years of legal consensus on the federal government's power to regulate money exchange within the U.S.--including those of the Founding Fathers themselves.
Counterfeiting has a long and sordid history, and was very much a problem when the Constitution was written. It was, in fact, one of (but not the only) impetuses for the Coinage Clause. See http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Summer07/counterfe.... There are plenty of other sources to support this, though this is the only one I found online in my 30 second search. If you want more sources, you're free to visit a library yourself.
>There is no provision in the constitution for the federal government to regulate money exchange.
Er, what? If you fund or help fund a criminal enterprise, you can be prosecuted for it. If someone was funnelling millions of dollars to, say, a child sex slave ring, you think that the constitution protects their sending of that money and they can't be charged for it?
I don't personally think drugs should be illegal at all, but I do think that funding crimes in general should be illegal, which is essentially what Shrem was charged with here.
Without taking a position on whether I think <MCRed> is right as a policy matter, you're responding to a different point.
<MCRed> is arguing (admittedly in a rant-y kind of way) that the U.S. Constitution is a document that grants limited and specific powers to the federal government and reserves the rest for the states and the people. That argument says those powers do not include the ability to regulate money exchange. An implication of that argument is that nearly all law enforcement would be left to the states -- so your hypothetical sex slave ring would be prosecuted by the states, and in fact every state currently has a law on its books making such a conspiracy illegal. And in fact most criminal prosecutions are already done by state governments.
Again, I'm not saying what I would prefer as a normative matter, just that it looks like you're talking past each other to some extent.
You're right, I am responding to a completely different point because I didn't really want to argue about what kind of powers are and aren't granted to the federal government by the Constitution. etchalon did a great job at that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8277608
Ignoring the legal system and the Constitution entirely though (purely for the sake of argument), it makes practical sense that for offenses that constitute multistate or multinational money laundering, the federal government would be the most appropriate enforcer of the law.
It's sad that you don't care about the quality of arguments or what the truth is. You just seem to care about what fits your ideology, which I'm sorry to say is fascist. (I await the time that another term is coined for this ideology so that I can stop using that one which people presume is a cheap insult rather than a precise description of an ostensible capitals society where the government has unlimited regulatory power.)
I submit to you that the "crime" of money laundering is one you're guilty of. I know for a fact, under the law, the way it is written you are guilty of it.
Thus you are advocating for your own incarceration.
Ok, well you consider what was done here "funding crimes", by the law, is it is written, you are guilty of both funding drug sales AND child sex slavery. IT doesn't have to be millions of dollars, all that's necessary is that money that crossed your hands was used for those purposes.
Therefore, by your argument you're a felon.
That's why I'm saying the law is illegal. I'm saying you're not a felon.
But of course, I get down voted to hell here, just convincing me that there is no intelligent life to be found on hacker news.
I sympathise with your (rare) regard for the Constitution, but money transmission is a forum of commerce, and thus the Congress may regulate it when it occurs across state or national borders. Just as not all good ideas are constitutional, not all bad ones are unconstitutional.
I would personally like to see the money-laundering laws repealed, as the activity they proscribe is not itself a true crime. They are prone to abuse, and appear fundamentally unjust to me. But they are at least in principle constitutional.
The NSA is not breaking the law. Again, not all good things are mandated and not all bad things are forbidden. There's a difference between pushing to the very edge of what the law permits and pushing further. In many ways, it's a hacker's mindset.
I think that there's an excellent argument that the TSA is violating the 4th Amendment. It's not at all obvious how stripping me naked with X-rays is consistent with the security of my person, nor is it clear that it is reasonable to be searched before boarding transportation. Additionally, I fail to see how disarmament of travellers is consistent with the 2nd Amendment.
I would probably support an amendment to permit searches for explosive devices, were it properly worded.
5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Section 8, clause 5: Defines the weight of money.
Section 8, clause 6: Allows for the punishment of counterfeiting.
Neither of these have anything to do with trading money between people.
I think that is why you did not quote them, you merely cited them expecting that most people would not bother to look them up and thus you would appear to have presented a slam dunk.
The commerce clause merely requires that no tariffs can be placed between commerce of the states. I find the phrase "currently accepted" in place of "criminal in practice" to be a convenient bit of spin.
I'm glad that you can cite the constitution. Maybe you should also have cited clause 3: "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes", which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions as applicable to the instruments of commerce, even in intrastate commerce.
No, it's not that its imperfect, its that it is non existent.
We have the rule of men who can do pretty much whatever they want, without repercussions.
Imperfection would be if %10 of the TSA employees prosecuted got off without punishment.
Criminality is the situation where none of them will ever be prosecuted.
But just like Germans in the 40s who couldn't believe the holocaust happened because they couldn't comprehend the possibility that their government could be that evil... american kids, indoctrinated in state worship in state schools can't conceive of the possibility that their government is nothing more than a gang of violent criminal thugs.
I don't see why you think it's a dishonest characterization. You don't think the regulation of money exchange is constitutional, I think it is because it's a commercial activity and the commerce clause of the constitution empowers Congress to legislate on such things - it's one of the enumerated powers, as popposed to being inferred by courts. As I'm sure you're aware of the commerce clause the only logical basis I can see for your position is if you don't think money exchange is a commercial activity.
Also ad hominem means something other than what you seem to think it means. That's when you dismiss someone's argument by saying there's something bad about the person making the argument, eg 'ignore what Alice said because she's a communist.'
