Yellen on Bitcoin: Fed Doesn’t Have Authority to Regulate It in Any Way

Re:Yellen on Bitcoin: Fed Doesn’t Have Authority to Regulate... by MichaelGG on Thursday February 27, 2014 @06:03PM (#7315907)

If the exemption came from the sovereignty of the Native states/tribes, why would it be narrowed down to just peyote? Versus letting those nations simply decide for themselves their own "scheduling" of medications?

I'm going off a few quick searches, but the peyote bit seems to exclude it for any "bona fide ceremonies" for the Native American Church, regardless of race. I didn't see any mention that they must be on reservations either. Wikipedia also notes that some states have a "bona fide religious" exemption that's not related to the NAC (which is at least somewhat more consistent, but "bona fide" is still silly to apply in this scope).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Yellen on Bitcoin: Fed Doesn’t Have Authority to Regulate... by jljljl on Thursday February 27, 2014 @06:46PM (#7316192)

Nations are not necessarily tied to land, nor is the sovereignty of the Native nations full sovereignty.

I don't understand the full ramifications of the treaty and legal status myself. My point was just to indicate that the flippant remark about "some religions can use peyote" leaves out a lot of historical, political, and legal context.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Yellen on Bitcoin: Fed Doesn’t Have Authority to Regulate... by MichaelGG on Thursday February 27, 2014 @10:26PM (#7317066)

OK, what about Sikhs and the dagger they are "required" wear at all times? I can't up and decide I must wear a knife (even if I put glue on it), then expect schools and the TSA to allow me to do so. The fact is that my "flippant" remark, while mentioning peyote specifically, applies to other such cases. Another example: conscientious objector status (which now has the religious part removed, but required a supreme court case to do so, AFAIK).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Yellen on Bitcoin: Fed Doesn’t Have Authority to Regulate... by argumentum on Sunday March 02, 2014 @05:33PM (#7331060)

> but required a supreme court case to do so

That's the point of the Supreme Court, which did it's job and confirmed that the government is not supposed to determine what constitutes a religion.

The Sikh kirpan (knife) issue hasn't been argued before the supreme court. When it is, I expect a school's right to ban that weapon will be affirmed on the same grounds.

[ Parent | on HN ]