“No state shall make anything but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts” merely moved the monetary authority to the federal government.
Congress has authority to coin money.
Private parties have the ability to make demand notes, as you do when ever you write a check.
The case I cited strongly criticized congress for changing the value of money, while admitting they had the legal right to do so.
Over and over we see people hoping that others will do the heavy lifting of government for them. Wouldn’t it be nice if the ___________ Department was held to be unconstitutional? But the courts hardly ever do that. Rather, they give self government a chance to fail. If self government fails, it will be because we didn’t win elections, and didn’t convince our fellow citizens.
There's a difference between self government and Constitutional self-government.
In theory there are things that are not allowed in the latter, that is the Constitution constrains government, even self-government. (The exclusive powers delegated, being exclusive, are therefore denied to the people or the states. [Except it must be noted that it is perfectly legitimate for the people as a whole to rise up and throw off any corrupt government.])
I can show you where governments flat-out ignore prohibitions placed upon them by their Constitutions. New Mexico's constitution says, in Art II, Sec 6:
No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.Yet the municipal & county courthouses prohibit weapons therein, and this is not by power of a state statute, which would not fall under the cited restriction, because such statute would itself be contrary as the test of the section reads:
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.Therefore, the state cannot lawfully prohibit Jurors from entering courthouses armed. Period.
Now if a state is willing to present such policy as legitimate, indeed always redirecting inquiry into the legitimacy thereof, how much moreso would the federal government abuse powers delegated unto itself? How much moreso would they present invalid acts as valid? (Indeed, the ACA decision is just such an example.)
If self government fails, it will be because we didn’t win elections, and didn’t convince our fellow citizens.
Now you start bringing up interesting points.
What happens when someone with a truly different policy steps up? Take Ron Paul as an example, sure he has a few policies I don't agree with, but his economic ideal is far better than a lot of his peers -- but what happens when someone says they'd rather vote Ron Paul than [Party/Press Anointed Candidate]? Even here there's a fair amount of derision. In fact, it's become more and more apparent that there's not much difference between the Press-anointed party-members of both sides: can you honestly imagine McCain standing up to the Democrats in Congress? Likewise, can you really imagine our [current] congress standing up to Obama? (They've had plenty of chance, but they won't.)
Now, take a look at the reaction towards 3rd party proponents. [Or as one person said: "I'd settle for a second party at this point."]