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.
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.
Thus everything you just said is nonsense words.