Steven Carney

[Steven Carney @SullivanCabin]

Here is how we got to this mess and how to use the Judicial Branch to try and restore limited government.

Cut back to essential functions :
•National Defense: Protecting the country from foreign enemies.
•Enforcing Contracts & Protecting Property: Providing a legal framework for voluntary agreements and safeguarding individuals from theft or fraud.
•Monetary Stability: Maintaining a stable currency.
•Adjudicating Disputes: Offering a judicial system to resolve conflicts over rules.

The Constitution, as defended by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, deliberately limited federal powers to enumerated areas like defense, foreign affairs, and interstate commerce. This was necessary to ensure liberty and the existence of individual rights. There are three main causes for the breach of limited federal government, and they can all be challenged in the courts.

The breach has resulted in itemized state control through regulation and spending that is unparalleled by any other central authority.

1. The Supreme Court’s 1937 reinterpretation broadened Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) to regulate activities that “affect” interstate commerce, even if indirect or intrastate. The 1937 shift was a mistake that abandoned enumerated powers and federalism principles. This opened the door to unbounded federal scope as a path to indirect interstate commerce always exists.

Craft a “limiting principle” argument demonstrating that the expansive view lacks boundaries and erodes federalism by intruding on state powers. Emphasize the national importance and the need to clarify or overrule post-1937 precedents. Frame it as restoring the Constitution’s balance of powers, using originalist arguments.

2. Congressional and Administrative State Collusion nullified the Presentment Clause. Vague and voluminous law, abdication via “The Secretary Shall Decide” is combined with loose funding and disbursement parameters with no clear intentions or link to performance. This has resulted in the unaccountable 4th Branch of government.

Take aggressive action now. Administrative State promulgated “law” can be defunded by the Legislature and, or halted in execution by the Executive. These endless rules and regulations cannot withstand Judicial scrutiny under Presentment Clause and 2024 Loper-Bright ruling.

3. The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) of 1974 formalized procedures and limited unilateral presidential action, impoundments were a common executive tool for the previous 200 years and were used for reasons ranging from efficiency and changed circumstances to policy disagreements. Legislative appropriations were seen as ceilings on spending to prevent executive overreach, rather than mandates to spend every dollar. This has resulted in 50 years of increased spending with no voter agency.

Make the first Regular Order Bill the repeal the Impoundment Control Act and Congressional Budget Act.

Challenge the constitutional basis. The ICA violates the Executive Vesting Clause (Art. II, § 1: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President”) and Take Care Clause (Art. II, § 3: the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”) by forcing the president to spend funds against policy judgment, effectively turning the executive into a mere “disbursing agent.” Impoundment is inherent for efficiency, waste prevention. The President could issue an executive order impounding funds and defend it in court (e.g., against GAO or recipient suits), seeking a declaratory judgment that the ICA is unconstitutional as applied.

The ICA’s delegation of enforcement to the Comptroller General (a congressional officer removable by Congress) violates Bowsher v. Synar (1986), which invalidated similar executive oversight by Congress. In a GAO enforcement suit, the Justice Department could counterclaim that the provision is unconstitutional, seeking to sever it or invalidate the Act wholesale.

[Steven Carney @SullivanCabin]

An independent financial confederation founded on reserved rights and immune to pending insolvency.

The dollar needs competition. Establish a haven for transaction privacy.

States like Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida legally recognize gold and silver as legal tender, but no transaction is private and transactions in gold/silver are not shielded from routine federal surveillance. SARs, in particular, have no dollar threshold and can flag patterns like frequent small transactions or unusual buyer behavior, eroding privacy even for legitimate uses.

Some the worst aspects have been part of a massive erosion of privacy since 1970. What advantage does DIGITAL ID have over facial recognition satellites and flock cameras combined with itemized federal control, unlimited spending, and unaccountable Administrative State?

BSA 1970 and SAR 1992 violate Individual and State’s rights and are exemplary of Federal, Central Authority, overreach. They are transformative surveillance powers and are envied by the most ambitious CBDC and digital ID control grid proponents.

The Bank Secrecy Act BSA $10,000 threshold, the Suspicious Activity Report SAR with no specific threshold prevent privacy in transacting.

BSA was signed by Nixon in 1970. BSA’s mass collection of financial data, over 20 million CTRs annually, constitutes a form of warrantless surveillance akin to a dragnet, conflicting with Fourth Amendment principles. It was justified by congressional concerns over organized crime, tax evasion, and the use of secret foreign bank accounts to hide illicit funds, which were impeding law enforcement investigations. It is now warrantless surveillance of every citizen’s financial life. It unconstitutionally (the legislature can not transfer the authority to make law to any other body) delegated authority to the Secretary of the Treasury (now primarily enforced by FinCEN, established in 1990) to prescribe regulations for implementation, including defining covered entities and requiring anti-money laundering (AML) programs.

SARs were introduced as a formal reporting mechanism in 1992 through the Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act, which amended the BSA to enhance AML efforts by requiring financial institutions to report any suspicious transaction that might indicate money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activity, regardless of dollar amount. This created boundless unwarranted search authority without Criminal Referral Forms. The system has grown exponentially, with over 4.6 million SARs filed in 2023 alone.

Launch Constitutional Litigation: focus on due process (overbreadth and vagueness), privacy erosion, and separation of powers issues, including non-delegation concerns (Loper-Bright) and indirectly implicate the Presentment Clause.

• File federal lawsuits challenging BSA’s application to state-tender assets as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to FinCEN or a 4th Amendment violation (no warrant for SARs). A test case could involve a Texas depository user suing over a SAR-filed transaction.

• Seek Supreme Court review, building on cases like United States v. Miller (1976), which upheld BSA but left room for privacy expansions.

[Steven Carney @SullivanCabin]

@porterstansb "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth."

[Steven Carney @SullivanCabin]

Individual and political freedom are prerequisites to free markets. At founding reserved rights and separation of powers recognized this. The current state is lacking in both.

The following examines the right to privacy with respect to financial transactions, primarily 4th Amendment, and provides a solution. It should be noted that the fierce response is consistent with the threat to the monopoly held by the $ Fiat.

[Steven Carney @SullivanCabin]

Yes but, how will Bitcoin hold up!

The secondary sanctions with respect to Iran present a working case for alternative currency independence. It would seem that the Iranian sanctions are a special circumstance test case for exchange outside the dollar.

It seems that we could see gold and stable-coin pricing within the sanction sphere diverge from global pricing as well as the exchange rate between the two.

Thus a price clearing driving force is created between the isolated arena of the political sanctions and the global arena using these fungible assets.

Current circumstances - Iran focused, but any block or adversary such as war with China is likely to face similar consequences.

Circumvention attempts (e.g., privacy coins, mixers, offshore decentralized platforms, or physical gold delivery paired with off-chain digital claims) raise costs and friction but do not create a clean legal safe harbor. OFAC’s approach has been to designate the identifiable intermediaries, service providers, and networks rather than chase every token or bar. Hybrid mechanisms that meaningfully scale Iranian gold or value transfer therefore remain high-risk under the expanded secondary-sanctions framework.

A platform, exchange, wallet provider, OTC desk, or clearing service that facilitates gold-backed tokens, gold-settled crypto transfers, or gold-referenced digital assets linked to Iranian parties or the Iranian gold sector can be treated as operating in one or both sectors.

Traditional financial intermediaries (banks, payment processors) that clear or settle the fiat or stablecoin legs of hybrid trades face correspondent-account and secondary-sanctions exposure if they knowingly facilitate Iranian-linked activity.

[Steven Carney @SullivanCabin]

An independent financial confederation founded on reserved rights and immune to pending insolvency.

The dollar needs competition. Establish a haven for transaction privacy.

States like Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida legally recognize gold and silver as legal tender, but no transaction is private and transactions in gold/silver are not shielded from routine federal surveillance. SARs, in particular, have no dollar threshold and can flag patterns like frequent small transactions or unusual buyer behavior, eroding privacy even for legitimate uses.

Some the worst aspects have been part of a massive erosion of privacy since 1970. What advantage does DIGITAL ID have over facial recognition satellites and flock cameras combined with itemized federal control, unlimited spending, and unaccountable Administrative State?

BSA 1970 and SAR 1992 violate Individual and State’s rights and are exemplary of Federal, Central Authority, overreach. They are transformative surveillance powers and are envied by the most ambitious CBDC and digital ID control grid proponents.

The Bank Secrecy Act BSA $10,000 threshold, the Suspicious Activity Report SAR with no specific threshold prevent privacy in transacting.

BSA was signed by Nixon in 1970. BSA’s mass collection of financial data, over 20 million CTRs annually, constitutes a form of warrantless surveillance akin to a dragnet, conflicting with Fourth Amendment principles. It was justified by congressional concerns over organized crime, tax evasion, and the use of secret foreign bank accounts to hide illicit funds, which were impeding law enforcement investigations. It is now warrantless surveillance of every citizen’s financial life. It unconstitutionally (the legislature can not transfer the authority to make law to any other body) delegated authority to the Secretary of the Treasury (now primarily enforced by FinCEN, established in 1990) to prescribe regulations for implementation, including defining covered entities and requiring anti-money laundering (AML) programs.

SARs were introduced as a formal reporting mechanism in 1992 through the Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act, which amended the BSA to enhance AML efforts by requiring financial institutions to report any suspicious transaction that might indicate money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activity, regardless of dollar amount. This created boundless unwarranted search authority without Criminal Referral Forms. The system has grown exponentially, with over 4.6 million SARs filed in 2023 alone.

Launch Constitutional Litigation: focus on due process (overbreadth and vagueness), privacy erosion, and separation of powers issues, including non-delegation concerns (Loper-Bright) and indirectly implicate the Presentment Clause.

• File federal lawsuits challenging BSA’s application to state-tender assets as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to FinCEN or a 4th Amendment violation (no warrant for SARs). A test case could involve a Texas depository user suing over a SAR-filed transaction.

• Seek Supreme Court review, building on cases like United States v. Miller (1976), which upheld BSA but left room for privacy expansions.

[Steven Carney @SullivanCabin]

The fix that offers stability, confidentiality, resilience, and credibility.

Attributes required:
• Political neutrality and stability: Long-standing neutrality and relative freedom from the wars, revolutions, and upheavals that plague other regions. neighbors creating a reliable “safe haven” for assets and commercial activity.
• Secrecy and trust: founding on confidentiality practices as seen in Geneva rules from 1713, evolved into formal banking secrecy under the 1934 Banking Act, protecting client information and building long-term trust.
• Economic strengths: Strong, stable currency, gold and independent stable coins. Low inflation, divorced from Fiat Monetary and Financial reach; sound public finances; property rights and rule of law; professional private banking expertise in wealth management, international payments, and trade finance.

[Steven Carney @SullivanCabin]

An independent financial confederation founded on reserved rights and immune to pending insolvency.

The dollar needs competition. Establish a haven for transaction privacy.

States like Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida legally recognize gold and silver as legal tender, but no transaction is private and transactions in gold/silver are not shielded from routine federal surveillance. SARs, in particular, have no dollar threshold and can flag patterns like frequent small transactions or unusual buyer behavior, eroding privacy even for legitimate uses.

Some the worst aspects have been part of a massive erosion of privacy since 1970. What advantage does DIGITAL ID have over facial recognition satellites and flock cameras combined with itemized federal control, unlimited spending, and unaccountable Administrative State?

BSA 1970 and SAR 1992 violate Individual and State’s rights and are exemplary of Federal, Central Authority, overreach. They are transformative surveillance powers and are envied by the most ambitious CBDC and digital ID control grid proponents.

The Bank Secrecy Act BSA $10,000 threshold, the Suspicious Activity Report SAR with no specific threshold prevent privacy in transacting.

BSA was signed by Nixon in 1970. BSA’s mass collection of financial data, over 20 million CTRs annually, constitutes a form of warrantless surveillance akin to a dragnet, conflicting with Fourth Amendment principles. It was justified by congressional concerns over organized crime, tax evasion, and the use of secret foreign bank accounts to hide illicit funds, which were impeding law enforcement investigations. It is now warrantless surveillance of every citizen’s financial life. It unconstitutionally (the legislature can not transfer the authority to make law to any other body) delegated authority to the Secretary of the Treasury (now primarily enforced by FinCEN, established in 1990) to prescribe regulations for implementation, including defining covered entities and requiring anti-money laundering (AML) programs.

SARs were introduced as a formal reporting mechanism in 1992 through the Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act, which amended the BSA to enhance AML efforts by requiring financial institutions to report any suspicious transaction that might indicate money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activity, regardless of dollar amount. This created boundless unwarranted search authority without Criminal Referral Forms. The system has grown exponentially, with over 4.6 million SARs filed in 2023 alone.

Launch Constitutional Litigation: focus on due process (overbreadth and vagueness), privacy erosion, and separation of powers issues, including non-delegation concerns (Loper-Bright) and indirectly implicate the Presentment Clause.

• File federal lawsuits challenging BSA’s application to state-tender assets as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to FinCEN or a 4th Amendment violation (no warrant for SARs). A test case could involve a Texas depository user suing over a SAR-filed transaction.

• Seek Supreme Court review, building on cases like United States v. Miller (1976), which upheld BSA but left room for privacy expansions.

[Steven Carney @SullivanCabin]

The fix that offers stability, confidentiality, resilience, and credibility.

Attributes required:
• Political neutrality and stability: Long-standing neutrality and relative freedom from the wars, revolutions, and upheavals that plague other regions. neighbors creating a reliable “safe haven” for assets and commercial activity.
• Secrecy and trust: founding on confidentiality practices as seen in Geneva rules from 1713, evolved into formal banking secrecy under the 1934 Banking Act, protecting client information and building long-term trust.
• Economic strengths: Strong, stable currency, gold and independent stable coins. Low inflation, divorced from Fiat Monetary and Financial reach; sound public finances; property rights and rule of law; professional private banking expertise in wealth management, international payments, and trade finance.

[Steven Carney @SullivanCabin]

@drawandstrike https://t.co/hYMt4hlEQN

[Steven Carney @SullivanCabin]

Yes but, how will Bitcoin hold up!

The secondary sanctions with respect to Iran present a working case for alternative currency independence. It would seem that the Iranian sanctions are a special circumstance test case for exchange outside the dollar.

It seems that we could see gold and stable-coin pricing within the sanction sphere diverge from global pricing as well as the exchange rate between the two.

Thus a price clearing driving force is created between the isolated arena of the political sanctions and the global arena using these fungible assets.

Current circumstances - Iran focused, but any block or adversary such as war with China is likely to face similar consequences.

Circumvention attempts (e.g., privacy coins, mixers, offshore decentralized platforms, or physical gold delivery paired with off-chain digital claims) raise costs and friction but do not create a clean legal safe harbor. OFAC’s approach has been to designate the identifiable intermediaries, service providers, and networks rather than chase every token or bar. Hybrid mechanisms that meaningfully scale Iranian gold or value transfer therefore remain high-risk under the expanded secondary-sanctions framework.

A platform, exchange, wallet provider, OTC desk, or clearing service that facilitates gold-backed tokens, gold-settled crypto transfers, or gold-referenced digital assets linked to Iranian parties or the Iranian gold sector can be treated as operating in one or both sectors.

Traditional financial intermediaries (banks, payment processors) that clear or settle the fiat or stablecoin legs of hybrid trades face correspondent-account and secondary-sanctions exposure if they knowingly facilitate Iranian-linked activity.

[Steven Carney @SullivanCabin]

@SternDrewCrypto Does Iran present as a test case for U.S. response and tactics to deal with alternative gold backed fiats?

[Steven Carney @SullivanCabin]

Yes but, how will Bitcoin hold up!

The secondary sanctions with respect to Iran present a working case for alternative currency independence. It would seem that the Iranian sanctions are a special circumstance test case for exchange outside the dollar.

It seems that we could see gold and stable-coin pricing within the sanction sphere diverge from global pricing as well as the exchange rate between the two.

Thus a price clearing driving force is created between the isolated arena of the political sanctions and the global arena using these fungible assets.

Current circumstances - Iran focused, but any block or adversary such as war with China is likely to face similar consequences.

Circumvention attempts (e.g., privacy coins, mixers, offshore decentralized platforms, or physical gold delivery paired with off-chain digital claims) raise costs and friction but do not create a clean legal safe harbor. OFAC’s approach has been to designate the identifiable intermediaries, service providers, and networks rather than chase every token or bar. Hybrid mechanisms that meaningfully scale Iranian gold or value transfer therefore remain high-risk under the expanded secondary-sanctions framework.

A platform, exchange, wallet provider, OTC desk, or clearing service that facilitates gold-backed tokens, gold-settled crypto transfers, or gold-referenced digital assets linked to Iranian parties or the Iranian gold sector can be treated as operating in one or both sectors.

Traditional financial intermediaries (banks, payment processors) that clear or settle the fiat or stablecoin legs of hybrid trades face correspondent-account and secondary-sanctions exposure if they knowingly facilitate Iranian-linked activity.

[Steven Carney @SullivanCabin]

An independent financial confederation founded on reserved rights and immune to pending insolvency.

The dollar needs competition. Establish a haven for transaction privacy.

States like Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida legally recognize gold and silver as legal tender, but no transaction is private and transactions in gold/silver are not shielded from routine federal surveillance. SARs, in particular, have no dollar threshold and can flag patterns like frequent small transactions or unusual buyer behavior, eroding privacy even for legitimate uses.

Some the worst aspects have been part of a massive erosion of privacy since 1970. What advantage does DIGITAL ID have over facial recognition satellites and flock cameras combined with itemized federal control, unlimited spending, and unaccountable Administrative State?

BSA 1970 and SAR 1992 violate Individual and State’s rights and are exemplary of Federal, Central Authority, overreach. They are transformative surveillance powers and are envied by the most ambitious CBDC and digital ID control grid proponents.

The Bank Secrecy Act BSA $10,000 threshold, the Suspicious Activity Report SAR with no specific threshold prevent privacy in transacting.

BSA was signed by Nixon in 1970. BSA’s mass collection of financial data, over 20 million CTRs annually, constitutes a form of warrantless surveillance akin to a dragnet, conflicting with Fourth Amendment principles. It was justified by congressional concerns over organized crime, tax evasion, and the use of secret foreign bank accounts to hide illicit funds, which were impeding law enforcement investigations. It is now warrantless surveillance of every citizen’s financial life. It unconstitutionally (the legislature can not transfer the authority to make law to any other body) delegated authority to the Secretary of the Treasury (now primarily enforced by FinCEN, established in 1990) to prescribe regulations for implementation, including defining covered entities and requiring anti-money laundering (AML) programs.

SARs were introduced as a formal reporting mechanism in 1992 through the Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act, which amended the BSA to enhance AML efforts by requiring financial institutions to report any suspicious transaction that might indicate money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activity, regardless of dollar amount. This created boundless unwarranted search authority without Criminal Referral Forms. The system has grown exponentially, with over 4.6 million SARs filed in 2023 alone.

Launch Constitutional Litigation: focus on due process (overbreadth and vagueness), privacy erosion, and separation of powers issues, including non-delegation concerns (Loper-Bright) and indirectly implicate the Presentment Clause.

• File federal lawsuits challenging BSA’s application to state-tender assets as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to FinCEN or a 4th Amendment violation (no warrant for SARs). A test case could involve a Texas depository user suing over a SAR-filed transaction.

• Seek Supreme Court review, building on cases like United States v. Miller (1976), which upheld BSA but left room for privacy expansions.

[Steven Carney @SullivanCabin]

The fix that offers stability, confidentiality, resilience, and credibility.

Attributes required:
• Political neutrality and stability: Long-standing neutrality and relative freedom from the wars, revolutions, and upheavals that plague other regions. neighbors creating a reliable “safe haven” for assets and commercial activity.
• Secrecy and trust: founding on confidentiality practices as seen in Geneva rules from 1713, evolved into formal banking secrecy under the 1934 Banking Act, protecting client information and building long-term trust.
• Economic strengths: Strong, stable currency, gold and independent stable coins. Low inflation, divorced from Fiat Monetary and Financial reach; sound public finances; property rights and rule of law; professional private banking expertise in wealth management, international payments, and trade finance.

[Steven Carney @SullivanCabin]

Yes but, how will Bitcoin hold up!

The secondary sanctions with respect to Iran present a working case for alternative currency independence. It would seem that the Iranian sanctions are a special circumstance test case for exchange outside the dollar.

It seems that we could see gold and stable-coin pricing within the sanction sphere diverge from global pricing as well as the exchange rate between the two.

Thus a price clearing driving force is created between the isolated arena of the political sanctions and the global arena using these fungible assets.

Current circumstances - Iran focused, but any block or adversary such as war with China is likely to face similar consequences.

Circumvention attempts (e.g., privacy coins, mixers, offshore decentralized platforms, or physical gold delivery paired with off-chain digital claims) raise costs and friction but do not create a clean legal safe harbor. OFAC’s approach has been to designate the identifiable intermediaries, service providers, and networks rather than chase every token or bar. Hybrid mechanisms that meaningfully scale Iranian gold or value transfer therefore remain high-risk under the expanded secondary-sanctions framework.

A platform, exchange, wallet provider, OTC desk, or clearing service that facilitates gold-backed tokens, gold-settled crypto transfers, or gold-referenced digital assets linked to Iranian parties or the Iranian gold sector can be treated as operating in one or both sectors.

Traditional financial intermediaries (banks, payment processors) that clear or settle the fiat or stablecoin legs of hybrid trades face correspondent-account and secondary-sanctions exposure if they knowingly facilitate Iranian-linked activity.

[Steven Carney @SullivanCabin]

How about getting out of the skimming business all together and leave charity up to the American people, "And who is my neighbor?” “For neveryone who exalts himselfwill be humbled, but the one who humbleshimself will be exalted.”

Charity begins at home may simply reflect that the specific circumstances of what is needed will never be clear to a distant self interested politician or bureaucrat. Government keeps 80%+ and very little is spent effectively with severe unintended consequences being the norm.

There is no ethical, moral, or financial rationale for charity to be managed by distant self-interested politicians and bureaucrats.
A) $1.00 through Fedgov = $0.10 to $0.20 maybe arrives. Or,
B) $1.00 direct donations = 5 to 10 times the impact.
Giving would increase and so would conditions precedent.

[Steven Carney @SullivanCabin]

It’s easy believe there is a high likelihood that government forces are at work in an area of concern when that is true!

Name one choice. The US citizen’s life is completely constrained by regulations, codes, license/permit requirements, tax rules… offering endless opportunities for the State to exercise tyranny.

“There will be special opportunities for the ruthless and unscrupulous”, Hayek.

Restore limited government through judicial action or default.

[Steven Carney @SullivanCabin]

Amish and related Mennonite groups operate a hybrid economy: standard U.S. dollars for most market transactions, combined with strong internal systems of barter, reciprocal labor, and mutual-aid obligations that act as off-balance-sheet / non-monetary stores of value. These practices reinforce community self-reliance and reduce dependence on commercial insurance or government programs, but they do not involve any formal alternative currency or token system. Practices vary by affiliation and settlement, more progressive groups interact more fully with mainstream banking and credit, while stricter Old Order groups emphasize cash and mutual aid more heavily.

[Steven Carney @SullivanCabin]

Do this on a national level and you create immediate competitive pressure on money supply.

States like Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida legally recognize gold and silver as legal tender, but no transaction is private and transactions in gold/silver are not shielded from routine federal surveillance. SARs, in particular, have no dollar threshold and can flag patterns like frequent small transactions or unusual buyer behavior, eroding privacy even for legitimate uses.

Some the worst aspects have been part of a massive erosion of privacy since 1970. What advantage does DIGITAL ID have over facial recognition satellites and flock cameras combined with itemized federal control, unlimited spending, and unaccountable Administrative State?

BSA 1970 and SAR 1992 violate Individual and State’s rights and are exemplary of Federal, Central Authority, overreach. They are transformative surveillance powers and are envied by the most ambitious CBDC and digital ID control grid proponents.

The Bank Secrecy Act BSA $10,000 threshold, the Suspicious Activity Report SAR with no specific threshold prevent privacy in transacting.

BSA was signed by Nixon in 1970. BSA’s mass collection of financial data, over 20 million CTRs annually, constitutes a form of warrantless surveillance akin to a dragnet, conflicting with Fourth Amendment principles. It was justified by congressional concerns over organized crime, tax evasion, and the use of secret foreign bank accounts to hide illicit funds, which were impeding law enforcement investigations. It is now warrantless surveillance of every citizen’s financial life. It unconstitutionally (the legislature can not transfer the authority to make law to any other body) delegated authority to the Secretary of the Treasury (now primarily enforced by FinCEN, established in 1990) to prescribe regulations for implementation, including defining covered entities and requiring anti-money laundering (AML) programs.

SARs were introduced as a formal reporting mechanism in 1992 through the Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act, which amended the BSA to enhance AML efforts by requiring financial institutions to report any suspicious transaction that might indicate money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activity, regardless of dollar amount. This created boundless unwarranted search authority without Criminal Referral Forms. The system has grown exponentially, with over 4.6 million SARs filed in 2023 alone.

Launch Constitutional Litigation: focus on due process (overbreadth and vagueness), privacy erosion, and separation of powers issues, including non-delegation concerns (Loper-Bright) and indirectly implicate the Presentment Clause.

• File federal lawsuits challenging BSA’s application to state-tender assets as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to FinCEN or a 4th Amendment violation (no warrant for SARs). A test case could involve a Texas depository user suing over a SAR-filed transaction.

• Seek Supreme Court review, building on cases like United States v. Miller (1976), which upheld BSA but left room for privacy expansions.