54 sats \ 13 replies \ @Coinsreporter 15 May \ on: Oklahoma signs bill into law protecting crypto spending, mining, & self-custody bitcoin
That's interesting! I've known that US states can enact laws that are specific to their states, that's fine. But I wanna know if the federal law can overturn a state law?
But overall it's a huge news for Bitcoin in Oklahoma.
If they want to, Feds can claim precedence in cases where the conflict involves interstate commerce. That would be easy to prove here. Still, it would be complicated and contentious. This is good news regardless.
reply
reply
Assuming commercial miners are operating, feds would just need to show bitcoin crossed state lines. I could envision a philosophical argument- bitcoin doesn't really "move" on the blockchain! BTW, "commerce" in this context doesn't need to involve "money",so that debate probably wouldn't even come into play. I'm not saying the feds would even challenge it. If other states follow suit, they may not. Look at how they have avoided a marijuana showdown. Of course, bitcoin may be different.
reply
Thanks. I know you're an attorney and have a much better grasp of these things.
It seems that it could be argued that almost anything falls under interstate commerce.
You grew a vegetable in your back yard -> those photons that grew your vegetable could have bounced off of the plant and hit another state had you not taken action therefore it affects interstate commerce.
Being intentionally myopic to explore the bound. I'm curious what arguments do/do not fly with respect to interstate commerce.
reply
It's been years since I even thought about this stuff, but you nailed the most commonly argued criticism of the interstate commerce clause. Just about anything can be called interstate commerce. That's why I am a Jefferson fan, and wish Hamilton had stayed in Curacou.
reply
So it turns out that Wickard v Filburn has almost the precise argument I presented regarding wheat and the same can be said for Gonzalez v Raich regarding home grown cannibus.
These types of decisions make me pretty cynical when it comes to law. I mean does anybody believe that the framers of the constitution thought it would make sense for the federal government to regulate what you do on your own property with your own labor and your own crops?
Ya killing me I love Hamilton esp looking at him from a historical standpoint. I don't agree at all with all of his policies but things like the Federalist Papers and the way he solidified the unity of the country by combining all the states' debt into the US debt was just crazy forward thinking looking back at it now! His views compared to the lay of the land now is something I have thought about a lot because while he would likely be against something like crypto he also was someone who supported not only the US independence movement but that of Haiti as well which throws in the fun mental curveball!
reply
Okay. Hamilton was a very bright guy. He also was a visionary when it came to the way the US could grow through commerce. He also was ahead of his time with his ideas regarding slavery. On the other hand, he loved the idea of centralization. He started the first federal bank, which thankfully failed quickly. I'm a Jefferson fan, but his ideas on an agrarian economy lacked vision. I love Jefferson for his fear of a strong central government. He really believed in decentralization, and would have certainly been a bitcoiner. Hamilton would be a liberal democrat.
reply
Yeah he was a huge centralization guy which is obviously something I am not a huge fan of! Given how forward thinking a lot of crypto stuff is and how he did buck/get around a lot of centralization during his time with revolutions and other ideas I wounder what he would be like in today's day and age. It would be/is such a conundrum I find it to be a fun little brain game to play lol