So $10K represents a legitimate cause for the government to monitor a citizen. Would you be able to cite any portion of the Bill of Rights or Constitution where you would derive that was granted to the Federal Government? The U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the law is here. As you will see by clicking on the link, the Court's opinion was written by Justice Rehnquist, and the Government's brief was written by Robert Bork. Rehnquist, for the Court, answered your question as follows:
"The plenary authority of Congress over both interstate and foreign commerce is not open to dispute, and that body was not limited to any one particular approach to effectuate its concern that negotiable instruments moving in the channels of that commerce were significantly aiding criminal enterprise."
Isn't it just grand how the War on Drugs makes "conservatives" into fans of big government?
Yep. You've got to think it through. And you can see by what is being brought up here - withdrawals under $10K - are now being scrutinized. The threshold was $10K but someone withdrawing less that 10K is being monitored. Where does it stop $1,000? $100.00? Besides 20 years from now 10K may actually be like 1,000 if we have strong inflation again like in the 70's - a gift from our friend Jimmy.
So someone gets in trouble for doing something perfectly legal because it prevented the government from monitoring them. Say what?
The power to monitor is the power to control. When will it be illegal to pull the window shades down?
The price of freedom is constant vigilance. It's too bad but it rings true.