The US government claiming power over the currency its banking corporation issues is one thing. I don't know why people just accept, without question, the claim that the government has regulating authority over a currency that it doesn't issue.
This case isn't about regulating authority over currency. Its about whether the fact that an investment was sold for bitcoins isntead of a fiat currency takes that investment out of the scope of the definition of "securities" subject to various provisions of the Exchange Act relating to securities fraud.
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
As I had to explain the difference between lunch and arbitrary use of government power, do I also have to explain the difference between government of consent and tyranny?
It's not your fault; this is just a really terrible venue for political discussions.
The overarching power of government is the problem, not how we discuss it on the net.
Actually, it is Congress. Specifically, the Court ruled that the use of bitcoins for the transactions at issue does not (as the defendant attempted to argue) cause them to fall outside the scope of the Exchange Act of 1934.
You can't defraud someone in any currency in the US. Or launder money or perform illegal activities. I can't mug a tourist and take the money out of their wallet and then claim that because I didn't steal any US currency I'm not a thief.